> ...Starlink satellites are responsible for over half of all near-collisions in space, according to...
- and yet -
> ...there are approximately 228 million pieces of space debris...
So - either the mere ~1,700 Starlink satellites are ~100,000X hyper-achievers when it comes to near-collisions...or else the The Independent is yearning to win a "Lies...Damn Lies...Statistics" hype-achiever award.
It could be a discrepancy is orbit. Most space debris is not on circular low earth orbit. In fact, that is not a stable orbit because of atmospheric drag.
And circular LEO is where most satelites are. So satelites in that same class of orbits would indeed be 'hyper achievers'.
From NASA graphics (1 Jan. 2019 data) - https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/photo-gallery/# - it looks like a great deal of the debris is in low or low-perigee orbits. (The latter still have plenty of opportunity to hit low-circular-orbit objects.)
I might accept Starlink satellites being 10X or even 100X performers, based on arguments about orbits, cross-sectional area, etc. But ~100,000X? No.
The whole thrust of the article is the satellites are hyperachievers at this, and there's tons more variables than that, path, velocity, acceleration, relative height ... – I don't have the energy to make a tortured analogy slamming you for lazy thinking, so I'll leave you with a lame one: you're hyperachieving at insulting after hyperachieving at false dichotomies.
- and yet -
> ...there are approximately 228 million pieces of space debris...
So - either the mere ~1,700 Starlink satellites are ~100,000X hyper-achievers when it comes to near-collisions...or else the The Independent is yearning to win a "Lies...Damn Lies...Statistics" hype-achiever award.