There is not a mention of that because the author knows what he is talking about - https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/10/25/space-debris-p...

Thanks for the link, I hadn't seen this

Satellites in low orbits will experience some amount of drag from a tiny bit of atmosphere, and will naturally de-orbit in a few years unless they are actively boosted. Also, regulators are very aware of the dangers and require all satellites (in any orbit) to have a de-orbit plan and schedule.

I'm surprised we don't basically just have a rectangle at a 5 or 10 degree angle that's 100m wide to "sweep" the sky and deflect debris to a faster burnup trajectory. I guess keeping it stable from impacts would be annoying, but you could put a solar array on the back of it and use ion engines to stabilize it.

It might not even have to be that big considering how good mission control people are at calculating trajectories.

High-speed impacts are likely to generate smaller, harder-to-track bits of debris at less predictable angles. Check out the link in klohto's comment.

Modern satellites (included Starlink) are much better at this than they used to be. However it'd be nice if there was some treaty, agreement, or body that defines and maybe enforces proper retiring of satellites and management of space debris.

Oh yea?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215303-spacex-satellit...

Cue the Kessler syndrome comment ...

Thanks for the insightful contribution to the conversation