254
Russia and China Develop Joint Plan to Counter Starlink; It Involves Physical Destruction of Satellites (militarnyi.com)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
84 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Low Earth orbit means that the debris will get dragged down by the atmosphere before it becomes a cascading problem. Thankfully.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Assuming none of the debris gets pushed into higher orbits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Orbits are elipses, which are loops. So after the explosion gives an object more energy it's in a new orbit right? That orbit has LOOP. Which means it has to come back to a similar point it's at now. Therefore if an object passes through low orbit, no one explosion can make it be in a high orbit. At best it'll be an ellipse with a point in high orbit and a point in low orbit.

    Any amount in low orbit means a decaying orbit due to drag with eventual falling out of the sky.

    If you get to the high orbit point and you get a SECOND explosion that's perfectly timed you could theoretically enter a new high orbit that's stable over the long term and contribute to Kessler syndrome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Blowing up a low orbit satellites can lead to many particles reaching high altitudes, if only temporary as you say, where they can cause cascades. Unstable orbits make the probability of collisions smaller, but they need to shatter only one satellite to end up with a mess in stable orbits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Space is pretty big. I understand the odds are non zero but it's still really small in this scenario.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    There’s a whole concept about this, a Kessler countdown of some sort. Some scientists are trying to figure out in the hypothetical situation where all satellites in orbit lost attitude control and evasive maneuver capabilities, how long would it take to initiate the Kessler syndrome. Apparently we went from months to days within the last decade.

    An astrophysicist I follow on Matodon is super vocal about it. I’ll have to find her posts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    If bits of satellite get propelled in the original direction of travel, they will stabilize into a higher orbit.

    Much like how you can do the rocket equivalent of hitting the gas and end up in higher orbit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Not without a second impulse at the minimum. There are no stabilising forces like friction or drag in space.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    They'll slow down whenever they hit their original altitude (or lower), no? Is it impossible for this to result in a stable higher orbit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    There is a low altitude and a high altitude point in an orbit. (Apogee for the high point, perigee for the low point) If you slow down at perigee, the altitude of the apogee decreases. If perigee is in atmosphere, then every time you go through that point, you slow down and the apogee decreases again. Sooner or later too much of the orbit is below atmosphere, and whatever it is that was in orbit burns up or falls down.

    I think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Ah, so you'd need an impulse around the apogee, and acceleration around just the perigee can't create a stable orbit? Makes sense, thanks!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Thats what I remember, someone who plays KSP will probably be along to telle what I forgot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I was just thinking this conversation is clear who has played KSP.

    Simplified, you have a rocket orbiting around the earth going over both poles in a circular orbit. Above the north pole its 250km high and fires off its rocket all at once. Now its orbit is an eclipse going to 500km above the south pole, but it will return to 250km above the north pole. If you want to increase your altitude over the north pole you would need to accelerate above the south pole.

    Orbiting is much more about going really really fast than it is about going really high up. Vast majority of the acceleration of launching into orbit goes into acceleration parallel to the ground rather than lifting away from it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •