top 75 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 86 points 4 months ago (23 children)

Yay!

Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome! Kessler Syndrome!

/s

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 4 months ago (21 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 21 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago (18 children)

    Assuming none of the debris gets pushed into higher orbits.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 4 months ago (16 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 16 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    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 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 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
  • [–] 2 points 4 months 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
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago* (5 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    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!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (15 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 15 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    How about a frozen yogurt? I call it frogurt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    The frogurt is also capitalist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Blowing up satellites turns it from 1 bit of space junk into thousands...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    They're so low they'll just burn up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    Depends what new orbit a given piece of junk is in. It could be mostly higher, only approaching the old one at it's semiminor axis.

    It's not as bad as blowing up a higher satellite, but most antisatellite weapons try to capture rather than destroy to avoid the question entirely.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Honestly, they are so cheap compared to anything that could kill them. The best passive defense strategy is to just launch more.

    Obviously there are lots of active defense measures that would be on the table. But that would likely be the chosen passive defense strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    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 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago*

    I recall hearing about a contract with some EU based company too, though. For both one way and two way satellite IP. No idea if that's still in effect. Also no idea if Starlink is still in effect. Well, apart from the star-to-cell bullshit Kyivstar is trying to do with the AI generated landing page. Or were trying earlier this year.

    Also, I recall someone complaining that if you order Starlink for one location and then put the unit in another, it will go "roaming mode" and limit speed. Doesn't hurt too much but that sucks! I would imagine that if you are stationary enough you may as well take time to set up line of sight directional antenna shit on land to some other object.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 4 months 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
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    That's great. No space for anyone.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    I could get on board with that.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    The problem is they won't clean anything up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Clean what up? The debris that burns up in the atmosphere?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    I suggest reading the Kessler syndrome article on Wikipedia. The short of it is that not all that debris is expected to come down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Eventually it will all come down, but it will take a very long time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    The Kessler syndrome was a proposed scenario, not a scientific study. A hypothetical.

    This article is about countering Starlink. Starlink satellites are in such low orbit, they de-orbit by themselves and fall back and burn up in the atmosphere very quickly if they don't correct their orbit regularly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    militarnyi.com

    Cool.

    Cool.

    https://militarnyi.com/en/advertising/

    Cool cool cool

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    And so the star wars begins.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Yeah! Fuck Starlink!

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    This feels like one AI civ making a pact with a lesser AI civ that is already bogged down in war and clearly won't win the military victory it's going for, so that once it has run the course of its use will be invaded and incorporated with the bigger civ.

    They're also already been sending settlers to the African continent, if it was me I'd be restarting the game because any turn now they will conquer Asia, Europe, and Africa, and achieve either a cultural or military victory by doomstack.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Reality isn’t a video game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • The one time I'm actually going to root for Russia and China.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    Nobody wanted them up there in the first place. Please fucking do.

  • source
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago

    I'm surprised China just doesn't say they created a better Starlink. The CCP lies/makes up about everything else so what's one more thing.

  • source
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    eat it, musk

  • source