SpaceX intentionally burned up 260 Starlink satellites in the last six months, with hundreds more set to follow

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,010   +58
Staff
In brief: SpaceX regularly retires Starlink satellites as it upgrades the network, and new FCC filings show how often it happens. A report submitted to the commission earlier this month states that the company deorbited 260 satellites between December 2025 and May 2026. Most of those – 176 – were first-generation units, with the rest from the newer generation. Another 349 satellites were decommissioned in that six-month stretch and are slated for disposal in the near future.

The process is deliberate. Starlink satellites are designed to have a lifespan of about five years and are then replaced with newer models. When a satellite reaches the end of its life and runs low on fuel, it uses what remains to lower its orbit and re-enter the atmosphere. The spacecraft is designed to burn up completely during re-entry.

That turnover is now part of day-to-day operations. Starlink now has more than 10,000 satellites, and keeping the network running requires constantly removing older ones from orbit. In the six months from December 2024 to May 2025, the company removed 472 satellites.

Bringing those satellites back to Earth isn't realistic. First-generation units weigh between 573 and 650 pounds, while second-generation units weigh 1,764 to 2,756 pounds. Recovering them would be both technically difficult and expensive, so SpaceX relies on controlled re-entry instead.

The steady replacement of satellites shows SpaceX is constantly upgrading the network's hardware. SpaceX is working toward higher-capacity satellites and new services, including Starlink Mobile, which is designed to connect directly with phones. The company is also planning an orbital compute satellite, A1, with a 120 kW computing payload.

To support that expansion, SpaceX is building an 11-million-square-foot manufacturing facility to produce satellites at scale. It says the factory is intended to support roughly 1 gigawatt of orbital computing capacity per year by late 2027.

The constellation itself is expected to grow significantly. SpaceX plans to launch up to 42,000 satellites into low-Earth orbit and received FCC approval in January for 7,500 additional second-generation satellites.

However, the pace of satellite disposal is starting to draw attention. SpaceX says its satellites fully disintegrate during re-entry, leaving no debris behind, but researchers have raised concerns about how repeated burn-ups could affect the atmosphere. Calls for more study – and potential regulation – are growing.

So far, satellites have largely been exempt from environmental review. The FCC has historically avoided imposing those requirements, partly out of concern that it could slow development in the space industry.

The agency is now considering a proposal to formally exclude space-based operations from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, arguing that they are "extraterritorial activities" with effects located entirely outside the jurisdiction of the United States. That proposal has not yet been approved.

Permalink to story:

 
I cannot wait for one to come apart or fail maneuvering and trigger a debris cascade to destroy EVERY SINGLE satellite in the shared orbit and prevent all space travel... no really I am excited to see it happen, and it WILL happen in my remaining lifetime. it will be glorious.

Kessler Syndrome
 
I cannot wait for one to come apart or fail maneuvering and trigger a debris cascade to destroy EVERY SINGLE satellite in the shared orbit and prevent all space travel... no really I am excited to see it happen, and it WILL happen in my remaining lifetime. it will be glorious.

Kessler Syndrome
Starlink satellites are simply in too low of orbits for Kessler syndrome to be a remote possibility. A single satellite by itself breaking up is a minor annoyance (that has already happened), and in no way can cause a "debris cascade" - orbital mechanics strictly limits how far away any possible debris can get from the original path, and without constant boosting thrust said debris quickly gets dragged back to Earth.

Even in the absolute worst case scenario, with an actual shooting war destroying thousands of satellites, the debris would clear out in like 5 years. Explosions don't produce stable orbits.
 
Last edited:
It’s a lot of them though and there’s an environmental concern as they contribute to destroying Ozone and GHGs
They're too long in orbit to create any long term issues. The satellites are constantly being repositioned and once they start getting low on fuel they just aim them towards the planet because it's cheaper to send new ones up instead of trying to refuel them.
 
I cannot wait for one to come apart or fail maneuvering and trigger a debris cascade to destroy EVERY SINGLE satellite in the shared orbit and prevent all space travel... no really I am excited to see it happen, and it WILL happen in my remaining lifetime. it will be glorious.

Kessler Syndrome

Except that's not how orbits work at all, and is purely fictional. Objects in the same orbit cannot collide, by the definition of "orbit" and "collide". And objects falling backwards (which is down) through another object's orbit have almost zero chance to collide with the other object, naturally. Such a collision would have to be calculated, thrust-vectored, and done on purpose.

Nobody expects anyone else to learn orbital dynamics, but opining on the topic without such education deserves a fair level of mockery.
 
Starlink satellites are simply in too low of orbits for Kessler syndrome to be a remote possibility. A single satellite by itself breaking up is a minor annoyance (that has already happened), and in no way can cause a "debris cascade" - orbital mechanics strictly limits how far away any possible debris can get from the original path, and without constant boosting thrust said debris quickly gets dragged back to Earth.

Even in the absolute worst case scenario, with an actual shooting war destroying thousands of satellites, the debris would clear out in like 5 years. Explosions don't produce stable orbits.

SHARED ORBIT. SHAAAARED ... with more than 'just' musks space sperm
 
They're too long in orbit to create any long term issues. The satellites are constantly being repositioned and once they start getting low on fuel they just aim them towards the planet because it's cheaper to send new ones up instead of trying to refuel them.
It’s the burning up part that causes the environmental issues not the fuel. It’s spreads aluminium, lithium etc into the atmosphere which causes the aforementioned effects
 
It’s the burning up part that causes the environmental issues not the fuel. It’s spreads aluminium, lithium etc into the atmosphere which causes the aforementioned effects
Out if all the ways we are polluting the world, this is the one you're going to worry about? They will pollute less than a single coal power plant would in a year. Aluminum and lithium oxcides are harmless. You might have to worry about cobalt and cadmium, but those likely get so diluted in the atmosphere.

Frankly, a single space x rocket pollutes more than what the starlink satellites burning up in a year. Do you know how many hundreds of tons of fuel it takes to launch one of those rockets and how toxic the rocket fuel is. The starlink satellites are a drop in a very large bucket as far as pollution goes. It likely would be far more polluting than to build out and maintain a fiber network to every home in the world and
 
I cannot wait for one to come apart or fail maneuvering and trigger a debris cascade to destroy EVERY SINGLE satellite in the shared orbit and prevent all space travel... no really I am excited to see it happen, and it WILL happen in my remaining lifetime. it will be glorious.

Kessler Syndrome
Those who alllude to Kessler Syndrome are actually exhibiting a different syndrome called Dunning-Kruger ... though given the fervid tenor and factual absurdity of your post, perhaps it should be called Freddy Kruger Syndrome.

Space is so vast that such debris could never "prevent all space travel", not by orders of magnitude. In the worst possible case, it would simply make a few orbital shells infeasible.

Finally, I'll note next-gen Starlink satellites are designed to operate at a much lower altitude of 300km, where any debris clearing happens quickly and automatically due to atmospheric drag.
 
Last edited:
Out if all the ways we are polluting the world, this is the one you're going to worry about? They will pollute less than a single coal power plant would in a year. Aluminum and lithium oxcides are harmless. You might have to worry about cobalt and cadmium, but those likely get so diluted in the atmosphere.
I really don’t think you understand the science and particularly the longevity.
Frankly, a single space x rocket pollutes more than what the starlink satellites burning up in a year. Do you know how many hundreds of tons of fuel it takes to launch one of those rockets and how toxic the rocket fuel is. The starlink satellites are a drop in a very large bucket as far as pollution goes. It likely would be far more polluting than to build out and maintain a fiber network to every home in the world and
Again I don’t think you’re understanding the science and you’re confusing what rocket fuel was vs what it is today. UDMH has been phased out as a main propellant in the US for example
 
Do you know how many hundreds of tons of fuel it takes to launch one of those rockets and how toxic the rocket fuel is.
Falcon series rockets burn purified kerosene and liquid oxygen -- a cleaner fuel than gasoline. But that's irrelevant as, starting next year, Starlink satellites will be launched by Starship, which uses nothing but methane, a fuel that when burned creates nothing but CO2 and water vapor.
 
At some point, all V2 Starlink satellites deorbit after 5 years. Let’s assume they all weigh 2,756 lbs, and 2,000 deorbit annually. That means an average of 15,100 lbs will enter the atmosphere daily, or 6,864 kg. That will make up less than 6.5% of mass entering the atmosphere according to telescopic surveys: https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/astronomy-and-astrophysics/meteors-and-meteor-showers
EBSCO said:
Telescopic surveys suggest that several billion meteoroids enter the Earth’s atmosphere every twenty-four hours, with an average total mass of about 100,000 kilograms.

Now I don’t know what those meteoroids are made up with, but I’d guess they’re made up of rock and metals. Their composition will likely be similar to most satellites. I think it’s worth studying more, but it’s probably nothing to be concerned about.

EDIT: NASA suggests it’s 44.000 kg of meteoroids that reach Earth daily: https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/
 
Last edited:
I think one of the primary reasons a "lot" of so called experts are alarmed is because this is a MUSK company doing it. Kind of tells you which side of the fence they are on. Prior to Musk siding with Trump,
most of those that are against anything he or his company does, were fans of him, his car company and Space-X.
 
With the world currently at where AI is writing all the code and soon will also be in the industries, I will not be surprised with either:
1) As others pointed out, just spreading debris all around the atmosphere and disturbing all other satellites.
2) Much more interesting, just all satellites start to drop to earth without getting completely damaged. I think this will be very easy to do if AI is in-charge. As soon as it finds out some way to get into atmosphere with accuracy, it will target all the people against AI and drop on their homes.
 
All the fun will begin when Chinese launch a million of low quality satellites that will be deciding when to fail and where to fall. Remember, we never brought them to take responsibility for releasing the deadly virus.
Nobody will pay for damage or deaths their sats will cause.
I just hope we split up with them for good, no buying or selling there.


I highly recommend China Show with Serpentza guy. With every next episode, I grow to despise this regime more. Not Chinese in general, but the regime which kept doing evil for its entire time in power.
 
We are only seeing a small turn over at this stage, it is when we see turnover of a couple of generation that will become an issue.

I am not sure if there have been studies on the impact of the materials burning up and how it interacts with the environment. Will it over time reflect, absorb or not effect energy?
Will it enter the food supply or become part of the air we breath?

4000+ per year is what we should look at into the future, not the current 500 per year with it at this stage.

Not putting in regulations tells me they do not want to take responsibility!
 
It’s a lot of them though and there’s an environmental concern as they contribute to destroying Ozone and GHGs
Climate change and the environment only matters when feeding the peasants crickets and stopping them from traveling or living in humane conditions.

It doesn't apply to the ruling class.
 
Back