top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Yay!

Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome!

/s

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child 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.

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

    Assuming none of the debris gets pushed into higher orbits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (11 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Who needs GPS and climate data anyway, right?

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

    Yay! but the Ukraine war effort Boo! but less space junk! Yay! but all those just... normal Starlink customers who need internet Boo! but fuck Musk! Yay!

    I'm gonna need a drink.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    How about a frozen yogurt? I call it frogurt.

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

    The frogurt is also capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    That is inevitable. The sky will be filled with the trash of struck down satellites and nothing can leave earth for a while. Before starlink, China had already demonstrated that they can shoot down satellites. No investigation needed.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    filled with the trash of struck down satellites

    It's already full of trash of operating satellites. Starlink is very very low orbit. When pieces go in random directions (assuming significant enough vertically), they either go back to the atmosphere (air will stop it, duh) or slightly higher up to be in an orbit that's original height on one side and slightly higher on another.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
    [–] 18 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    We already have the technology if memory serves. Since civilians are the last to know, there have probably been satellite killers in orbit for years.

    It's fun for Musk to get fucked, but I believe Ukraine uses Starlink to defend itself

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago

    According to the authors of the concept, if the resilience of a satellite constellation is ensured by its sheer number, then the response should be a weapon cheap enough to destroy satellites faster than SpaceX can launch new ones.

    Smells of the good old forgeting that the target wont just sit by

    At least they arent putting everything in one basket this time with physical destruction being the last option

    Whats a satellite constallation destroyer but a anti ICBM weapon under a diffrent name?

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I wonder how much taxpayer money will be spent trying to protect musk's satellites.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    I could get on board with that.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    That's great. No space for anyone.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Ooh I'm actually all for this! Destroy ALL the satellites!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago

    they already have anti-satellite missiles, they just need to build alot of them. or have jamming satellites of thier own,.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    And so the star wars begins.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›