Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

An Orbital House of Cards: Frequent Satellite Close Conjunctions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Low Earth orbit is now within a week of a catastrophic collision if all satellite maneuvers stopped, down from 164 days in 2018.

desk verdict CRASH Clock is a useful new KEI with a dramatic 2018–2025 trend; the 5.5-day absolute value is cross-section–dependent, but the paper states this clearly and the conclusion holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.09643 v3 pith:7DT2YX6X submitted 2025-12-10 astro-ph.EP

Sarah Thiele , Skye R. Heiland , Aaron C. Boley , Samantha M. Lawler This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords CRASHClocklowEarthorbitorbitaldebrismegaconstellationscloseconjunctionscollisionrisksatellitesafetyKesslersyndrome
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces the CRASH Clock, a metric for stress in low Earth orbit defined as the expected time before a close approach that could cause a catastrophic collision if all satellite maneuvers stopped or situational awareness was lost. Using satellite catalogue data from 25 June 2025, it reports a CRASH Clock value of 5.5 days, versus 164 days for 1 January 2018, before megaconstellations dominated. The result suggests that LEO operations currently rely heavily on continuous, error-free collision avoidance, and that a widespread disruption—such as a major solar storm—could quickly lead to a debris-generating collision. The authors validate their analytic density-based calculations with N-body simulations and find agreement within a factor of two. The metric is intended as a key environmental indicator, not a prediction of imminent collision.

What carries the argument

The CRASH Clock is computed from orbit-averaged number densities of tracked objects in 1 km altitude shells, combined with a rate equation that multiplies density pairs, collision cross-sections, and typical relative speed (~10 km/s at 550 km). The key object is the expectation time τ_col = 1/Γ_total, where Γ_total sums encounter rates over all object-type pairs. The assumed collision cross-sections—10 m satellite-satellite, 5 m satellite-debris, 10 cm debris-debris—are the load-bearing parameter choices; the paper stresses they represent 'serious concern' not guaranteed collisions. The analytic results are checked against N-body simulations using actual TLE orbits.

What would settle it

Monitor actual close approaches below 10 m among catalogued objects during a period of no collision-avoidance maneuvers (e.g., a storm-induced suspension). If the observed rate is substantially lower than the predicted one—say, no such approach within 5.5 days repeated over several windows—the collision cross-section assumptions are too large. Alternatively, use historical TLE data with maneuvers masked out to count predicted <10 m approaches and compare with conjunction reports from operators.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the orbital environment now sits within days of a potential catastrophic collision under no-maneuver conditions. Specifically, the authors define the CRASH Clock as the inverse of the total expected close-approach/collision rate among catalogued resident space objects, using assumed collision cross-sections of 300 m² for satellite-satellite encounters, 79 m² for satellite-debris, and 0.03 m² for debris-debris. As of 25 June 2025 this clock reads 5.5 days; on 1 January 2018 it was 164 days. Within 24 hours of halted maneuvers, they estimate a 17% probability of a potentially catastrophic close approach, with 15% involving a Starlink satellite. The paper frames this n

Load-bearing premise

The entire clock value rests on the assumed distances at which close approaches count as potential collisions—10 m for satellite-satellite, 5 m for satellite-debris, 10 cm for debris-debris—rather than on measured collision outcomes; if the true catastrophic-encounter distance is smaller, the 5.5-day number grows (to about 23 days using average satellite areas).

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the clock is correct, a single severe geomagnetic storm or software-wide failure could produce a catastrophic collision within about a week, because position uncertainties balloon during such events and maneuvers may be impossible.
  • The 17% daily probability under no-maneuver conditions quantifies how much current safety depends on continuous collision-avoidance maneuvers, which Starlink alone performs roughly once every 1.8 minutes.
  • Even if the 'probable collision' clock with larger thresholds is 23 days, the qualitative trend—two orders of magnitude reduction since 2018—remains, suggesting the environment is becoming structurally fragile regardless of exact thresholds.
  • A collision in the dense 550 km Starlink shell could initiate a collisional cascade, since that shell is already near the runaway threshold, making the short clock a precursor warning for long-term Kessler-type growth.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The CRASH Clock's value scales linearly with the chosen collision distance thresholds; if real catastrophic collision distances are smaller (e.g., compact, attitude-stable satellites), the clock could be several times longer—potentially 23 days with ESA average areas. This sensitivity should be tested against actual close-approach statistics from operational conjunction data.
  • The metric could be extended to sub-populations (e.g., specific constellation shells or inclination bands) to identify which orbital regions are closest to the edge, rather than a single LEO-wide number.
  • Because the clock is computed from catalogued objects only, untracked debris would shorten it further; the paper's assumption of perfect tracking is optimistic, so public interpretation should treat 5.5 days as an upper bound on the no-maneuver collision timescale.
  • A testable prediction follows: during any future multi-day period of mass maneuver suspension (e.g., a storm), the observed rate of <100 m conjunctions should match the analytic prediction; if not, the cross-section assumptions need revision.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new key environmental indicator for low Earth orbit, the CRASH Clock, defined as the expected time before a close approach that could cause a catastrophic collision among catalogued resident space objects, under the assumption that all satellite manoeuvres cease or situational awareness is severely lost. Using TLE-based number densities in 1-km spherical shells and a kinetic-theory collision-rate formula, the authors compute a CRASH Clock of 5.5 days for 25 June 2025 versus 164 days for 1 January 2018. They validate the underlying analytic conjunction rates against J2-only N-body simulations initialized from the same TLE catalogues, finding agreement within a factor of two for encounter distances of 1 km and 100 m. The paper argues that the orbital environment is currently 'within a week' of a potentially catastrophic collision absent active management, and frames the CRASH Clock as a policy-relevant stress metric complementary to carrying-capacity and Kessler-syndrome measures.

Significance. If the quantitative claim holds, this is a timely and policy-relevant contribution. The CRASH Clock is a transparent, reproducible metric that can be computed from public TLE data, and the paper ships open-source code and provides an independent N-body check. The qualitative finding—that no-manoeuvre conjunction rates have decreased by roughly two orders of magnitude between 2018 and 2025—is robust to the paper's own cross-section assumptions and is well supported by the analytic-simulation agreement. The historical comparison and the explicit discussion of the May 2024 Gannon storm give the metric practical relevance. The main value is as a stress indicator and early-warning tool, not as a precise collision forecast.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Eq. (2), Methods §4.3] The headline CRASH Clock value of 5.5 d is linearly proportional to the assumed 'collision' cross-sections (300, 79, 0.03 m²), which correspond to 10 m/5 m/10 cm close-approach distances and are explicitly labelled 'illustrative reference example only' and 'close approach distances of serious concern – not guaranteed collisions.' The N-body validation in Table 1 checks <1 km and <100 m conjunction rates and does not calibrate the 10 m threshold. The paper's own 4.8m-2.4m-10cm alternative gives 23 d for 2025, a factor of 4.2. Thus the specific 'within a week' statement in the abstract and Discussion is not robust. I recommend presenting the Clock as a range or with a systematic sensitivity analysis, and either softening the abstract or justifying the 10 m threshold with physical collision models.
  2. [§2, single-shell calculation] The text states Γ_ss ≈ 2.2×10⁻⁶ s⁻¹ but then τ_ss ≈ 11 d. For the stated parameters (n_sat = 2×10⁻⁷ km⁻³, A_col = 300 m², ¯v_r = 10 km s⁻¹, 30-km shell at 550 km), Equation (1) gives Γ_ss ≈ 1.1×10⁻⁶ s⁻¹, which yields τ_ss ≈ 10.5 d. The quoted 2.2×10⁻⁶ s⁻¹ corresponds instead to n_sat ≈ 3×10⁻⁷ km⁻³ and would give τ ≈ 5 d. This numerical inconsistency should be corrected so the worked example is reproducible.
  3. [§2.1 and Discussion] There is a definitional conflation between 'collision' and 'close approach of serious concern.' Section 2.1 says 'we take collisions to become possible whenever the centre-centre distance is 10 m ...' and calls these 'collision cross sections,' but the CRASH Clock actually measures the expected time to a close passage at a specified distance, not to a physical collision. The abstract's 'possible catastrophic collision' is defensible, but the main text repeatedly uses 'collision rate' and 'collision time' without consistently carrying the modifier 'possible.' This distinction is load-bearing for the policy interpretation (e.g., the 5.5 d number is not a collision forecast) and should be made explicit throughout.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The arXiv title is 'An Orbital House of Cards: Frequent Satellite Close Conjunctions,' but the full text heading reads '... Frequent Megaconstellation Close Conjunctions.' Please harmonize.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption / §4.4] Figure 2 says 'The simulation duration was one month,' but the text also describes 'additional simulation runs' for the 100 m threshold. Please specify the duration of the 100 m runs and of the run that found the <30 m conjunction.
  3. [§1, footnote 1] Typo: 'applied in difference contexts' should read 'applied in different contexts.'
  4. [Discussion, para. 9] Double definite article: 'how the the CRASH Clock can be used' should be 'how the CRASH Clock can be used.'
  5. [Methods §4.3] When defining the alternative 4.8m-2.4m-10cm Clock, it would help to state explicitly that the quoted 72 m² cross-section corresponds to π(4.8/2)² ≈ 72 m², to make the mapping from distance to area transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the CRASH Clock is an openly defined rate-derived metric, not a fitted or self-citational prediction.

full rationale

The CRASH Clock is computed from TLE-based number densities, assumed relative speeds, and explicitly stated collision cross-sections via Eq. 2 (Methods §4.3). The 5.5-day value is a direct consequence of that stated model, not a parameter fitted to the reported collision time, and the paper explicitly discloses the sensitivity: using the 4.8m-2.4m-10cm cross-sections changes the 2025 Clock to 23 d. The N-body simulation is an independent consistency check of the analytic conjunction-rate calculation using the same TLEs, and it agrees with the analytic rates at 1 km and 100 m to within a factor of two; it is not used to tune the collision cross-sections. The cross-section choices are justified geometrically from satellite dimensions and ESA-reported average areas, not from the target result. Self-citations (e.g., refs 20, 21, 37) support contextual claims about debris-generating events and environmental impacts, not the Clock's derivation. The metric is by definition the inverse of an assumed collision rate under no-maneuver conditions; that is an explicit modeling choice, not a hidden reduction of the prediction to its inputs. Therefore there is no significant circularity, and the main limitation (cross-section uncertainty) is a sensitivity/robustness concern rather than a circularity concern.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result depends on: (1) the standard kinetic collision-rate formula, (2) the assumed random orientation of orbits for the relative velocity, (3) the assumption that the TLE catalogue is the relevant RSO census, and (4) the chosen collision cross-sections. No new physical entities are introduced; the CRASH Clock is a derived metric. The cross-section thresholds (10 m/5 m/10 cm) are the dominant free choices and directly set the clock value.

free parameters (2)
  • Collision cross-sections for the 10m-5m-10cm clock = 300 m² (sat-sat, rocket-rocket, sat-rocket), 79 m² (sat/rocket-debris), 0.03 m² (debris-debris)
    Chosen by hand in §4.3 to correspond to center-to-center close approach distances of 10 m, 5 m, and 10 cm, above which a collision is considered 'possible'. The CRASH Clock value scales linearly with these areas; the paper's alternative 4.8m-2.4m-10cm clock uses 72 m² and yields 23 d instead of 5.5 d.
  • Close-approach distance thresholds = 10 m / 5 m / 10 cm
    These thresholds define what counts as a 'possible catastrophic collision'. They are motivated by satellite dimensions (Starlink V2 mini bus length ~29 m) but are not empirically derived from real collision outcomes or measured conjunction statistics.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Collision rate is given by the kinetic formula Γ = (1/2)∫ n² A v_r dV
    Eq. (1) in §2; standard kinetic theory for dilute particles, assumes uniform density in each shell.
  • domain assumption Orbital angular momentum vectors are randomly oriented over a sphere
    Methods §4.2, Eq. (6); used to derive v_r = 4/3 v_o. The paper notes the actual orbit distribution has inclination structure; the N-body simulation is used to validate this assumption.
  • domain assumption Orbits can be treated as circular for the relative speed calculation
    Methods §4.2; LEO orbits are near-circular for active satellites, but debris eccentricities can be significant. The simulation uses full TLE states.
  • domain assumption The TLE catalogue is a complete census of collision-relevant RSOs
    Used throughout; the paper states only 'Tracked Debris' are included. Untracked debris would increase densities and shorten the Clock, so the assumption biases the result toward longer collision times.
  • standard math Close-approach events follow a Poisson process
    §2 and Discussion; used to convert τ into probabilities (17% within 24 h).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Orbital House of Cards: Frequent Satellite Close Conjunctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7DT2YX6X

@misc{pith2026251209643,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Orbital House of Cards: Frequent Satellite Close Conjunctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7DT2YX6X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.09643}
}
read the original abstract

The number of objects in orbit is rapidly increasing, primarily driven by the launch of megaconstellations, an approach to satellite constellation design that involves large numbers of satellites paired with their rapid launch and disposal, as well as the overall proliferation of satellite systems. While satellites provide many benefits to society, their use comes with challenges, including the growth of space debris, collision risks, ground casualty risks, optical and radio-spectrum pollution, and the alteration of Earth's upper atmosphere through rocket emissions and reentry ablation. There is potential for current or planned actions in orbit to cause serious degradation of the orbital environment or lead to catastrophic outcomes, highlighting the urgent need to find better ways to quantify stress on the orbital environment. Here we propose a new metric, the CRASH Clock, that measures such stress in terms of the timescale for a possible catastrophic collision to occur if there are no satellite maneuvers or there is a severe loss in situational awareness. Our calculations show that the CRASH Clock is 5.5 days as of June 2025 and continues to decrease, which suggests there is limited time to recover from a wide-spread disruptive event, such as a solar storm. This is in stark contrast to the pre-megaconstellation era: in 2018, the CRASH Clock was 164 days.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Technical Report A/AC.105/C.1/2025/CRP.9, United Nations (2025)

    Science and Technical Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (S&T COPUOS): IADC space debris mitigation guidelines. Technical Report A/AC.105/C.1/2025/CRP.9, United Nations (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Technical Report ESSB-ST-U-007 Issue 1, European Space Agency (2023)

    ESA Space Debris Mitigation Working Group (ESA): ESA space debris mitigation requirements. Technical Report ESSB-ST-U-007 Issue 1, European Space Agency (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    Technical report, Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordi- nation Committee (July 2021)

    IADC Steering Group and Working Group 4: IADC statement on large constellations of satellites in low earth orbit. Technical report, Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordi- nation Committee (July 2021). https://iadc-home.org/documents public/file down/ id/5253

    2021

  4. [4]

    Acta Astronautica57(2), 324–329 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro

    Liou, J.-C., Johnson, N.L.: A leo satellite postmission disposal study using leg- end. Acta Astronautica57(2), 324–329 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro. 2005.03.002 . Infinite Possibilities Global Realities, Selected Proceedings of the 55th International Astronautical Federation Congress, Vancouver, Canada, 4-8 October 2004

    doi:10.1016/j.actaastro 2005

  5. [5]

    Acta Astronautica161, 348–362 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.05.003

    Letizia, F., Lemmens, S., Bastida Virgili, B., Krag, H.: Application of a debris index for global evaluation of mitigation strategies. Acta Astronautica161, 348–362 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.05.003

    doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2019.05.003 2019

  6. [6]

    Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (2024) https://doi.org/10

    D’Ambrosio, A., Linares, R.: Carrying capacity of low earth orbit computed using source-sink models. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (2024) https://doi.org/10. 2514/1.A35729 https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A35729

    work page doi:10.2514/1.a35729 2024

  7. [7]

    Nature Sustainability8, 363–372 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41893-025-01512-0

    Parker, W., Brown, M., Linares, R.: Greenhouse gases reduce the satellite carrying capacity of low earth orbit. Nature Sustainability8, 363–372 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41893-025-01512-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41893-025-01512-0 2025

  8. [8]

    https://unstats

    United Nations: Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals 13 and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2025). https://unstats. un.org/sdgs/indicators/Global-Indicator-Framework-after-2025-review-English.pdf

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    In: Astronomy and Satellite Constellations: Pathways Forward; IAU Symposium No

    Lawrence, A.: Astronomy, doughnuts, and carrying capacity. In: Astronomy and Satellite Constellations: Pathways Forward; IAU Symposium No. 385 (2023). http: //arxiv.org/abs/2311.09504

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: 9th European Confer- ence on Space Debris, vol

    Lewis, H.: A space environment health situation report. In: 9th European Confer- ence on Space Debris, vol. 9 (2025). https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/ sdc9/paper/274

    2025

  3. [11]

    Journal of Geophysical Research83(A6), 2637–2646 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA06p02637

    Kessler, D.J., Cour-Palais, B.G.: Collision frequency of artificial satellites: The cre- ation of a debris belt. Journal of Geophysical Research83(A6), 2637–2646 (1978) https://doi.org/10.1029/JA083iA06p02637

    1978 doi

  4. [12]

    https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/ understanding-the-misunderstood-kessler-syndrome/

    Kelvey, J.: Understanding the misunderstood Kessler Syn- drome (2024). https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/ understanding-the-misunderstood-kessler-syndrome/

    2024

  5. [13]

    Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi- ronment16(4), 222–230 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1794 https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/fee.1794

    Soga, M., Gaston, K.J.: Shifting baseline syndrome: causes, con- sequences, and implications. Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi- ronment16(4), 222–230 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1794 https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/fee.1794

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    Zenodo (2022)

    DQSII, Connie Walker (editor), Piero Benvenuti (editor): Dark and Quiet Skies II Working Group Reports. Zenodo (2022). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5874725 . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5874725

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    European Space Agency (2025)

    ESA Space Debris Office: ESA’S Annual Space Environment Report. European Space Agency (2025). https://www.esa.int/Space Safety/Space Debris/ESA Space Environment Report 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    Advances in Space Research72(7), 2552–2569 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.06.010

    Letizia, F., Bastida Virgili, B., Lemmens, S.: Assessment of orbital capacity thresh- olds through long-term simulations of the debris environment. Advances in Space Research72(7), 2552–2569 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.06.010 . Space Environment Management and Sp...

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Technical report, Space Exploration Technologies Corp

    SpaceX: Spacex gen1 and gen2 status report. Technical report, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (2025)

    2025

  10. [19]

    In: 9th European 14 Conference on Space Debris, pp

    Lewis, H.G., Kessler, D.J.: Critical number of spacecraft in low earth orbit: a new assessment of the stability of the orbital debris environment. In: 9th European 14 Conference on Space Debris, pp. 1–4. ESA Space Debris Office, ??? (2025). https: //conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int...

    2025

  11. [20]

    Journal of the Astronautical Sciences69(6), 1797–1820 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-022-00356-6 arXiv:2111.12196 [astro-ph.EP]

    Thiele, S., Boley, A.C.: Investigating the Risks of Debris-Generating ASAT Tests in the Presence of Megaconstellations. Journal of the Astronautical Sciences69(6), 1797–1820 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1007/s40295-022-00356-6 arXiv:2111.12196 [astro-ph.EP]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Nature Astronomy8(1), 10–12 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-023-02173-9

    Boley, A., Byers, M.: Anti-satellite weapon tests to disrupt large satellite constellations. Nature Astronomy8(1), 10–12 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-023-02173-9

    2024

  13. [22]

    International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking43(4), 272–292 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1002/ sat.1555 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sat.1555

    C ¸ elikbilek, K., Simona Lohan, E., Praks, J.: Optimization of a leo-pnt constella- tion: Design considerations and open challenges. International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking43(4), 272–292 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1002/ sat.1555 https://onlinelibrary.w...

    2025 doi

  14. [23]

    Remote Sensing12(11) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111845

    Guan, M., Xu, T., Gao, F., Nie, W., Yang, H.: Optimal walker constellation design of leo-based global navigation and augmentation system. Remote Sensing12(11) (2020) https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12111845

    2020 doi

  15. [24]

    Acta Astronautica48(5), 681–691 (2001) https://doi.org/10

    Cornara, S., Beech, T.W., Bell´ o-Mora, M., Janin, G.: Satellite constellation mission analysis and design. Acta Astronautica48(5), 681–691 (2001) https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0094-5765(01)00016-9

    2001

  16. [25]

    https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/ oil-and-chemical-spills/significant-incidents/legacy-exxon-valdez-oil-spill

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office (NOAA): The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (2019). https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/ oil-and-chemical-spills/significant-incidents/legacy-exxon-valdez-oil-spill

    2019

  17. [26]

    Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets61(5), 1412–1416 (2024) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A36164 arXiv:2406.08617 [astro-ph.EP]

    Parker, W.E., Linares, R.: Satellite Drag Analysis During the May 2024 Gannon Geomagnetic Storm. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets61(5), 1412–1416 (2024) https://doi.org/10.2514/1.A36164 arXiv:2406.08617 [astro-ph.EP]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [27]

    Space Weather21(3), 2022–003330 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1029/2022SW003330 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2022SW003330

    Berger, T.E., Dominique, M., Lucas, G., Pilinski, M., Ray, V., Sewell, R., Sutton, E.K., Thayer, J.P., Thiemann, E.: The thermosphere is a drag: The 2022 starlink incident and the threat of geomagnetic storms to low earth orbit space operations. Space Weather21(3), 2022–003330...

    2022 doi

  19. [28]

    Space Weather22(7), 2023–003818 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003818 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2023SW003818

    Parker, W.E., Freeman, M., Chisham, G., Kavanagh, A., Mun Siew, P., Rodriguez-Fernandez, V., Linares, R.: Influences of space weather forecasting uncertainty on satellite conjunction assessment. Space Weather22(7), 2023–003818 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1029/2023SW003818 https:...

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    Technical report, World Data Center for Geomagentism (2015)

    Kyoto, Nose, M., Iyemori, T., Sugiura, M., Kamei, T., Matsuoka, A., Imajo, S., Kotani, T.: Geomagnetic dst index. Technical report, World Data Center for Geomagentism (2015). https://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/wdc

    2015

  21. [30]

    Cliver, E.W., Dietrich, W.F.: The 1859 space weather event revisited: limits of extreme activity. J. Space Weather Space Clim.3, 31 (2013) https://doi.org/10. 1051/swsc/2013053

    2013

  22. [31]

    Advances in Space Research38(2), 130–135 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr

    Green, J.L., Boardsen, S.: Duration and extent of the great auroral storm of 1859. Advances in Space Research38(2), 130–135 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr. 2005.08.054 . The Great Historical Geomagnetic Storm of 1859: A Modern Look

    2006 doi

  23. [32]

    https://www.space

    Pultarova, T.: SpaceX Starlink satellites had to make 25,000 collision-avoidance maneuvers in just 6 months — and it will only get worse (2023). https://www.space. com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability

    2023

  24. [33]

    https://www.space.com/ satellites-collision-avoidance-maneuvers-increase-collision-risk

    Pultarova, T.: Performing evasive maneuvers increases satel- lites’ collision risk down the road (2023). https://www.space.com/ satellites-collision-avoidance-maneuvers-increase-collision-risk

    2023

  25. [34]

    https://www.geekwire.com/2019/ esa-shifts-spacecraft-avoid-starlink-satellite-spacex-reports-bug-collision-warning-system/

    Boyle, A.: SpaceX reports a ‘bug’ in its alert system after ESA shifts space- craft to avoid Starlink satellite collision (2019). https://www.geekwire.com/2019/ esa-shifts-spacecraft-avoid-starlink-satellite-spacex-reports-bug-collision-warning-system/

    2019

  26. [35]

    In: AMOS Tech (2023)

    Shepperd, R.: Subsequent Assessment of the Collision between Iridium 33 and COS- MOS 2251. In: AMOS Tech (2023). https://amostech.com/TechnicalPapers/2023/ Conjunction-RPO/Shepperd.pdf

    2023

  27. [36]

    https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/ PromotingSpaceSustainability/Publication Final English June2021.pdf

    United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA): Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (2021). https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/ PromotingSpaceSustainability/Publication Final Englis...

    2021

  28. [37]

    Nature Astronomy6, 428–435 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-022-01655-6 arXiv:2204.10025 [astro-ph.IM]

    Lawrence, A., Rawls, M.L., Jah, M., Boley, A., Di Vruno, F., Garrington, S., Kramer, M., Lawler, S., Lowenthal, J., McDowell, J., McCaughrean, M.: The case for space environmentalism. Nature Astronomy6, 428–435 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41550-022-01655-6 arXiv:2204.1002...

    2022 arXiv

  29. [38]

    In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, vol

    Murphy, D.M., Abou-Ghanem, M., Cziczo, D.J., Froyd, K.D., Jacquot, J.L., Lawler, M., Maloney, C., Plane, J.M.C., Ross, M., Schill, G.P., Shen, X.: Metals from the reentry of spacecraft in stratospheric particles. In: AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, vol. 2023, pp. 32–01 (2023). htt...

    2023 doi

  30. [39]

    Scientific Reports15(1), 2966 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84001-2

    Wright, E., Boley, A., Byers, M.: Airspace closures due to reentering space objects. Scientific Reports15(1), 2966 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84001-2

    2025 doi

  31. [40]

    In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit (2006)

    Vallado, D., Crawford, P., Hujsak, R., Kelso, T.S.: Revisiting spacetrack report #3: Rev 1. In: AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit (2006). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2006-6753

    2006 doi

  32. [41]

    In: ALENEX ’99, Baltimore (1999)

    Maneewongvatana, S., Mount, D.M.: Analysis of approximate nearest neighbor searching with clustered point sets. In: ALENEX ’99, Baltimore (1999). https: //arxiv.org/abs/cs/9901013

    1999 arXiv

  33. [42]

    In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC

    Lam, S.K., Pitrou, A., Seibert, S.: Numba: a llvm-based python jit compiler. In: Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC. LL VM ’15. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA (2015). https: //doi.org/10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  34. [43]

    Computing in Science & Engineering23(2), 7–14 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCSE.2021.3059263

    Granger, B.E., P´ erez, F.: Jupyter: Thinking and storytelling with code and data. Computing in Science & Engineering23(2), 7–14 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCSE.2021.3059263

    2021

  35. [44]

    Computing in Science and Engineering9(3), 21–29 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCSE.2007.53

    P´ erez, F., Granger, B.E.: IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Computing in Science and Engineering9(3), 21–29 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/ MCSE.2007.53

    2007

  36. [45]

    Hunter, J.D.: Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing in Science & Engineering9(3), 90–95 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 7 Acknowledgments We thank Christopher Chyba and Ryne Beeson for helpful discussions regarding our simulation code and the relative ve...

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.