# Impact of Mega Constellations on Geospace Safety
## 5 Discussion and Conclusions  
The collision probability of the Starlink constellation with the target satellite was calculated in this paper by calculating its various altitude and mass object fluxes to LEO satellites, and the collision probability was evaluated by the ARES module of DRAMA to obtain the satellite's ACPL value, as well as the corresponding maneuver frequency, risk level, and control avoidance consumption. This study sought to determine the impact of the mega constellation on the control avoidance strategy of the target satellite. The following conclusions were obtained. (1) The target satellites with varying ranges of area, orbital altitude, and inclination are significantly impacted by Starlink, indicating that Starlink has a comprehensive effect on LEO satellites. However, these three characteristics also vary in the degree to which Starlink affects the target satellites, with orbital altitude having the greatest impact, followed by inclination and area. (2) In the case of ACPL-\(10^{-4}\), the manipulation frequency of the three target satellites becomes 2.252, 13.9, and 20.76 times that of the previous one when Starlink is considered, and the change trend is similar to the flux. For the same ACPL values, the risks of the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Name**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Revolutions**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**5**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**10**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**0**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Revs**} \\ \cline{3-4} \cline{6-7}  & _Whatlink_ & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-6} JILIN-01-01 & _Whatlink_ & & & & & & \\ GAOFEN 2D & _Starlink_ & & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{_With Starlink ACPL_} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Without Starlink ACPL_} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Without Starlink_} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{_Without Starlink_} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{_With_} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{_With_} \\ \multicolumn{6}{c}{_With Starlink ACPL_} \\ \multicolumn{6}{three have increased, becoming 5.5947, 4.5, and 62.73 times more than the previous ones, which means that even with frequent control avoidance, the geospace environment does not improve, i.e., the total amount of risk becomes greater, the same proportional residual risk becomes higher, and therefore the same ACPL values require more control avoidance maneuvers after the influence of Starlink. However, even if the same ACPL value is reached, the collision risk latter is much higher than the former; even with more propellant consumed, the risk present is still not effectively removed. Furthermore, corroborating this argument is the change of the maneuvering frequency with its corresponding risk coefficient, where the maneuvering frequency becomes 6.16, 190.4, 20.77 times greater than the previous one, which respectively becomes 2.13, 0.372, and 17.143 times greater than the previous one. The increase in manipulation frequency after considering Starlink does not guarantee that the risk coefficient decreases or even returns to its original tier, and the increase in manipulation frequency is even accompanied by an increase in the risk coefficient in cases where the increase in manipulation frequency is not of a large order of magnitude. (3) The effect of the change of \(\Delta V\) on the orbital maneuver of the target satellite and the effect of early orbital maneuver on \(\Delta V\) are initially obtained from the change. According to the characteristics of the three target satellites, the orbital altitude has a greater effect on the avoidance control, and the area of the target satellite plays a greater effect. The inclination angle, on the other hand, does not play a significant role. In the avoidance operation, the early orbital maneuvering is beneficial to reduce the orbital maneuvering consumption of different types of target satellites.