Space junk removal is not going smoothly
While I know Scientific American is a fairly mainstream targeted and softer science publication, this<p>><i>And the problem is now poised to get much worse because of the rise of satellite “mega constellations” requiring thousands of spacecraft, such as SpaceX’s Starlink, a broadband Internet network.</i><p>really could have used a LOT more qualification particularly since it's become a major recent talking point. There is one ultimate sure-fire way to reduce space junk: <i>launch stuff to very low orbits</i>. There is still some atmosphere (varying with heating and other factors) up a long ways in "space", and it's only above 600km or so that orbital drag becomes negligible enough that lifetimes really stretch out. The ISS for example requires regular reboosts or it would decay back into the atmosphere.<p>SpaceX focusing on economics has made it feasible to start planning constellations of comm sats that are low and very low earth orbit, with the understanding that inherently their lifetimes will be measured in single digit years. But that's ok since they can be replaced so cheaply. This is much better, not worse. Even if they go offline or got hit, the debris would have a very restricted lifetime. The media should do a better job of conveying how cheaper $/kg to LEO opens up a lot of new possibilities in what regulations are feasible and how we think about the basics of satellite design. A simple "Mega constellation bad!" is all wrong, and that's not necessarily going to be intuitive to everyone.