New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

SpaceX Starlink satellite suffers mysterious ‘anomaly’ in orbit

Elon Musk’s space Internet company said this satellite, which appears to have blown to pieces, did not appear to pose a risk to the ISS or the upcoming NASA moon mission

Starlink Logo Shown On Smartphone With SpaceX Branding In Background

Photoillustration by Cheng Xin/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

One of Elon Musk’s Starlink Internet satellites suffered an “anomaly” on Sunday while in orbit around Earth, the company said in a social media post. The incident appears to have created some debris, with fragments likely to fall to Earth over the next few weeks, according to LeoLabs, a company that monitors satellites in low-Earth orbit.

The satellite lost communication at about 560 kilometers above Earth, Starlink said. While the statement from Starlink, which is a subsidiary of Musk’s rocket company SpaceX, merely noted that investigations are ongoing, LeoLabs said its radar observations of the event indicated an “internal energetic source” as the likely cause rather than a collision. SpaceX and LeoLabs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The incident underscores the potential hazards of the increasingly large numbers of satellites and other spacecraft in low-Earth orbit—some 10,000 Starlinks are currently in orbit and counting.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"Fundamentally as the number of satellites grows, so does the rate of failures," says Peter Plavchan, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at George Mason University.

Starlink’s statement said that “the event poses no new risk” to the International Space Station or to the upcoming launch of NASA’s Artemis II mission, targeted for April 1.

Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who closely tracks space activity, is more skeptical, however. “I don’t see how the risks can be nil," he says. “They are low because all the debris is expected to reenter quickly. But I’d like to hear more about why they assess the risk to be zero.” And if the fragmentation event arose from a design flaw, McDowell adds, that could affect hundreds of Starlinks, “and then the risks go up, a lot.”

“The hope is that SpaceX will identify the root cause and proactively retire any particular subset of satellites that are found to be at risk,” he says.

Editor’s Note (3/31/26): This is a developing story and may be updated.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe