SpaceX vaporizes 260 Starlink satellites in six months using Earth's atmosphere — new environmental concerns emerge over burning 2,700-pound orbital data centers, FCC seeks to exempt satellites from regulations

News
By
Published

Starlink burns multiple retired satellites daily from its over 10,000-strong constellation

Low earth orbit space debris
(Image credit: Getty Images)

SpaceX has confirmed in a semi-annual report submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) earlier this month that it disposed of 260 Starlink satellites between December 2025 and May 2026, intentionally vaporizing them via re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. According to the report, 176 of these satellites belonged to the first-generation Starlink constellation, with the rest belonging to the second generation. An additional 349 satellites were decommissioned within that 6-month period and will be disposed of in the coming months.

SpaceX’s Starlink operates a huge constellation of over 10,000 satellites as of the time of this report, even as the company plans for Starlink Mobile, which will provide satellite internet directly to mobile phones. However, each of these satellites has a lifespan of about 5 years, a somewhat intentional setup to allow swapping for newer versions, after which their fuel depletes. When this happens, the satellite is programmed to use its remaining fuel to perform a controlled de-orbit. It lowers its altitude and plunges into Earth's atmosphere, where extreme friction completely incinerates 100% of the spacecraft.

The constellation is so large and varied that Starlink reportedly disposes of multiple satellites daily. It removed more than 472 satellite links from orbit between December 2024 and May 2025. Retrieving the deorbited satellites — which weigh roughly 573 to 650 pounds (260 to 295 kg) for first-generation units and 1,764 to 2,756 pounds (800 to 1,250 kg) for second-generation units — is technically impractical and financially unviable, according to the company. Hence, the incineration technique.

Latest Videos From

While Starlink’s disposal approach disintegrates 100% of the spacecraft, leaving behind no falling debris, it has raised concerns about its effect on the atmosphere. Researchers have urged further studies and regulations on the environmental impact of satellites. The FCC has long excluded satellites from environmental reviews, reportedly out of concern that regulations might slow the space race. Any regulation would likely be under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). However, the FCC is officially proposing “that space-based operations be excluded from NEPA because they are ‘extraterritorial activities’ with effects located entirely outside of the jurisdiction of the United States.” The proposal is yet to be approved.

SpaceX has a multi-phased goal to eventually deploy up to 42,000 Starlink satellites into low-Earth orbit and obtained FCC approval for 7,500 additional Starlink Gen2 satellites in January. Meanwhile, the company has unveiled plans for its A1 satellite orbital data center, with a 120 kW compute payload. SpaceX is currently building an 11-million-square-foot Gigasat manufacturing facility for these satellites.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Etiido Uko
Etiido Uko
News Contributor

Etiido Uko is a news contributor for Tom's Hardware covering the latest updates in big tech and the PC industry. He is a mechanical engineer and senior technical writer with over nine years of experience in documentation and reporting. He is deeply passionate about all things engineering and technology, and is an expert in gadgets, manufacturing, robotics, automotive, and aerospace.

14 Comments Comment from the forums
  • dclark064
    How does the atmospheric pollution due to burning up old satellites compare to pollution required to launch them?
    Reply
  • usertests
    Retrieving the deorbited satellites — which weigh roughly 573 to 650 pounds (260 to 295 kg) for first-generation units and 1,764 to 2,756 pounds (800 to 1,250 kg) for second-generation units — is technically impractical and financially unviable, according to the company.
    It might become possible with a fully reusable Starship or other spacecraft, that are able to maneuver in orbit and capture some payload for landing. But they would not be able to capture nearly as much as they launch into space, unless you send them empty ($$$). Or we need to break the rocket equation with propellantless drives.

    It would be difficult, but it's an approach that's going to need to exist for orbital cleanup (of objects that are lingering for decades) or space warfare.

    Space elevators could be helpful but maybe not viable with Earth's gravity and atmosphere.

    dclark064 said:
    How does the atmospheric pollution due to burning up old satellites compare to pollution required to launch them?
    The exhaust depends on the fuel type used by the rocket. There are claims that expelling exhaust higher up in the atmosphere has an outsized impact, even if there is a lot less rocket pollution than car/plane pollution.
    Reply
  • missingegg
    120 kW compute capacity satellites are supposed to resolve the problems of building giant AI data centers on earth? That seems crazy. I've bought (for work) 40 MW data centers for traditional computing workloada, and those are considered wholly inadequate for modern AI focused inference workloads. And yet a single 40 MW data enter would take 333 120 kW satellites to replace it. Launching enough satellites to cope with the demand for AI datacenters will require an absurd number of launches. Goldman Sachs just projected that data center power demand will increase 35 GW in the US next year, which would be 291,667 of those little satellites. If they are launched into low orbits to keep the cost down, that'd be almost triple current estimates for the total number of satellites we could manage in low orbits.
    Reply
  • dclark064
    usertests said:
    The exhaust depends on the fuel type used by the rocket. There are claims that expelling exhaust higher up in the atmosphere has an outsized impact, even if there is a lot less rocket pollution than car/plane pollution.
    There are lots of claims, but what are the facts?
    Reply
  • usertests
    dclark064 said:
    There are lots of claims, but what are the facts?
    Fact is, WE ARE DOOMED.
    Reply
  • sreams
    Better put a stop to those meteors then...

    "Scientists estimate that about 100,000 pounds of meteoric material enters Earth’s atmosphere every day, with approximately 95% of it vaporizing into tiny, micron-sized dust particles."
    Reply
  • usertests
    sreams said:
    Better put a stop to those meteors then...

    "Scientists estimate that about 100,000 pounds of meteoric material enters Earth’s atmosphere every day, with approximately 95% of it vaporizing into tiny, micron-sized dust particles."
    Those are organic, free-range space debris.
    Reply
  • Stomx
    missingegg said:
    I've bought (for work) 40 MW data centers for traditional computing workloada, and those are considered wholly inadequate for modern AI focused inference workloads.
    What specifically have you require 40MW? Some AI experts like Daniel Satchkov for example claim that the current AI centers capacity far far far -- by orders of magnitude -- exceeds any reasonable demand for the most AI inferencing needs and the only purpose to build current AI volumes is mostly for analyzing demanding video and voice data streams to control the people.
    Reply
  • dva852
    missingegg said:
    120 kW compute capacity satellites are supposed to resolve the problems of building giant AI data centers on earth? That seems crazy.
    This is akin to saying "crypto has no inherent value, it's crazy that the crypto market is now over 2 trillion dollars."

    A public statement doesn't need to make mathematical sense. In this instance, it just needs to command attention. With enough attention--and will--things that don't make sense at start, can perhaps be willed make sense later. Or not.

    What matters isn't the feasibility of resultant output, but the steering of (collective) effort toward a desired direction--preferably one that benefits you.

    SpaceX just had its IPO. A moonshot statement is good for setting investor expectations (and resultant stock evaluation) high. It's aspirational.
    Reply
  • Christopher_115
    Admin said:
    SpaceX retired 260 Starlink satellites in six months, with hundreds more to follow, as debate grows over the atmospheric impact of satellite burn-ups.

    SpaceX vaporizes 260 Starlink satellites in six months using Earth's atmosphere — new environmental concerns emerge over burning 2,700-pound orbita... : Read more
    While Starlink’s disposal approach disintegrates 100% of the spacecraft, leaving behind no falling debris, it has raised concerns about its effect on the atmosphere. Researchers have urged further studies and regulations on the environmental impact of satellites.

    As well urge further studies and regulations on peeing in the ocean.
    Reply