This is a cool article, in every sense, but the paragraph above puzzles me a little, I can't see a reason for mentioning this concern, given it has not been proven to be something that will happen. Until we think of Starlink.

That system, has already many failed satellites within it, which have already become uncontrolled orbiting shrapnel, which many of us experienced in satellite technology until then, warned would happen, because we knew that no time or expense was given for radiation hardening, so we knew they would be short lived, with statistically high failure rate.

The response we get, from those arguing for Starlink, is that the ones that fail will automatically deorbit, by just dropping out due to the friction of the upper atmosphere bringing them down.

But if the same mechanism does not bring down space pollution, why should dead starlink satellites be any different? They will keep orbiting, until something stops them, like a collision.

That risks a catastrophe which could take out every satellite flying, even the ISS, if things reallly kicked off. The impact of all of that is beyond our comprehension, it would even knock out the internet, the timing of which depends on GPS satellites, as well as many links via conventional satellites between countries.

Now if it is seen that indeed we were right to be concerned about Starlink, and there is now an increasing risk, by increasing numbers of dead satellites refusing to drop out of orbit, a story might be needed, to deflect the blame from Starlink, if the worst should happen.

With this story, the groundwork is being set, for folk to turn round after the worst has happened, and say well, "Who knew that the mechanism we said would bring down dead Starlink satellites was goig to change, allowing them to keep flying as shrapnel?"