6 ms·

Am I the only one who thinks this is good news? Not awesome, not even great, but good for development of space technologies. It's literally another space race

by jotm 11y ago

Am I the only one who thinks this is good news? Not awesome, not even great, but good for development of space technologies. It's literally another space race if it's true, and we know how the last one turned out. As they seek to destroy stuff in space (from Earth and from space), they'll want to do it as cheap and fast as possible, and that will be picked up by civilian space companies and enthusiasts in no time. I highly doubt it will cause any big wars - but if it does, we damn well deserve it.

washedup 11y ago
Sure, investment in tech yes, but I would be very concerned about the massive increase in "space debris" in our lower orbits if things are getting blown apart. Enough war in space and we will need a clean-up method before people go back.
davidy123 11y ago
I just hope we can keep people like you (or anyone who uses the word "we" like this) away from any sort of position of responsibility.
- adrianpike 11y ago
  I just hope we can keep people like you we Used intentionally to double down on your point, or irony?
  - davidy123 11y ago
    It was unintentional (and I dislike abuse of the word), but if "we" is a simple majority of the world's population, I suspect "we" would prefer to keep space war mongers away from responsibility.
    - jotm 11y ago
      Yeah, we would prefer. Not that it matters, since they're in power anyway...
- themartorana 11y ago
  How's that worked out so far?
- kinghajj 11y ago
  ...says someone who just used "we" in a too-general sense themselves!
rrss1122 11y ago
A space race to Mars is a fun, if monstrously wasteful economically, way for the nations to one-up each other. A space race to build weapons to destroy each other's satellites is not fun, and not good news. I don't see the higher probability of armed conflict with Russia or China as a good trade-off for development of space technologies. And going to war because "we damn well deserve it" is a terrible reason.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  As with anything about blowing up satellites, the potential for a runaway chain reaction of debris collisions should be mentioned. It's not pretty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
  - patrickmn 11y ago
    That's how the movie Gravity starts.
  - forkerenok 11y ago
    I'm wondering if it is feasible to create an autonomous/remotely piloted Garbage Collector that would be knocking the junk down into atmosphere?
    - wlesieutre 11y ago
      Maybe, but you'd need to make sure when it gets hit by a flake of paint at a relative velocity of 8-10 km/s that it doesn't make any new fragments. Space debris is fast. And space is very, very big. Similar problems to cleaning up the ocean. Even if someone comes up with an effective solution, now you need to launch a million of them to get the job done. Maybe small space debris could be cleaned up by vaporizing it or pushing it around with lasers?
      - forkerenok 11y ago
        Those are good points. A followup thought I had is that it (the Garbage Collector) doesn't have to clean everything up in predetermined constant time once it's been deployed. Performance would be sufficient, if, for a given interval of time, it would knock down at least as many pieces of junk, as there were collisions and new launches for the same period, plus some "margin"/"premium" to keep the counter going down.
artmageddon 11y ago
I couldn't disagree more. There are many parts in the world where people still have to deal with landmines that were laid in conflicts which ended long ago(i.e. decades). It's especially problematic because many of these fields aren't mapped or marked by any means, and kill people who unknowingly wander into them. War in space could mean filling Earth's low orbit with debris that travel in excess of thousands of kilometers per hour. Going back to the landmine analogy, imagine being unable to get to your local supermarket because two warring nations planted landmines at every possible exit outside of your neighborhood. A war in space would be much worse.
- jotm 11y ago
  Why use the landmine analogy when you can use the Space Race analogy? We ended up with GPS, high resolution cameras on satellites, the Hubble, and of course, intercontinental ballistic missiles, which have yet to kill anyone, thankfully... But I agree about the debris - then again, maybe they'll invent something to clear all that crap...
  - artmageddon 11y ago
    > Why use the landmine analogy when you can use the Space Race analogy? I was focusing specifically on the "war" part which, to me in part, means targeting enemy assets in space, e.g. artificial satellites for communications and other purposes. If it were a race between nations to accomplish a specific goal, then by all means, let the games begin.
- SEJeff 11y ago
  How would it be worse if only a very select number of companies / powers are going to space? We won't be going to space to get to the local supermarket, so I am genuinely unsure how your analogy makes any sense.

by jotm 11y ago

washedup 11y ago

Sure, investment in tech yes, but I would be very concerned about the massive increase in "space debris" in our lower orbits if things are getting blown apart. Enough war in space and we will need a clean-up method before people go back.

davidy123 11y ago

I just hope we can keep people like you (or anyone who uses the word "we" like this) away from any sort of position of responsibility.

adrianpike 11y ago
I just hope we can keep people like you we Used intentionally to double down on your point, or irony?
- davidy123 11y ago
  It was unintentional (and I dislike abuse of the word), but if "we" is a simple majority of the world's population, I suspect "we" would prefer to keep space war mongers away from responsibility.
  - jotm 11y ago
    Yeah, we would prefer. Not that it matters, since they're in power anyway...
themartorana 11y ago
How's that worked out so far?
kinghajj 11y ago
...says someone who just used "we" in a too-general sense themselves!

rrss1122 11y ago

A space race to Mars is a fun, if monstrously wasteful economically, way for the nations to one-up each other. A space race to build weapons to destroy each other's satellites is not fun, and not good news. I don't see the higher probability of armed conflict with Russia or China as a good trade-off for development of space technologies. And going to war because "we damn well deserve it" is a terrible reason.

wlesieutre 11y ago
As with anything about blowing up satellites, the potential for a runaway chain reaction of debris collisions should be mentioned. It's not pretty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
- patrickmn 11y ago
  That's how the movie Gravity starts.
- forkerenok 11y ago
  I'm wondering if it is feasible to create an autonomous/remotely piloted Garbage Collector that would be knocking the junk down into atmosphere?
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    Maybe, but you'd need to make sure when it gets hit by a flake of paint at a relative velocity of 8-10 km/s that it doesn't make any new fragments. Space debris is fast. And space is very, very big. Similar problems to cleaning up the ocean. Even if someone comes up with an effective solution, now you need to launch a million of them to get the job done. Maybe small space debris could be cleaned up by vaporizing it or pushing it around with lasers?
    - forkerenok 11y ago
      Those are good points. A followup thought I had is that it (the Garbage Collector) doesn't have to clean everything up in predetermined constant time once it's been deployed. Performance would be sufficient, if, for a given interval of time, it would knock down at least as many pieces of junk, as there were collisions and new launches for the same period, plus some "margin"/"premium" to keep the counter going down.

artmageddon 11y ago

I couldn't disagree more. There are many parts in the world where people still have to deal with landmines that were laid in conflicts which ended long ago(i.e. decades). It's especially problematic because many of these fields aren't mapped or marked by any means, and kill people who unknowingly wander into them. War in space could mean filling Earth's low orbit with debris that travel in excess of thousands of kilometers per hour. Going back to the landmine analogy, imagine being unable to get to your local supermarket because two warring nations planted landmines at every possible exit outside of your neighborhood. A war in space would be much worse.

jotm 11y ago
Why use the landmine analogy when you can use the Space Race analogy? We ended up with GPS, high resolution cameras on satellites, the Hubble, and of course, intercontinental ballistic missiles, which have yet to kill anyone, thankfully... But I agree about the debris - then again, maybe they'll invent something to clear all that crap...
- artmageddon 11y ago
  > Why use the landmine analogy when you can use the Space Race analogy? I was focusing specifically on the "war" part which, to me in part, means targeting enemy assets in space, e.g. artificial satellites for communications and other purposes. If it were a race between nations to accomplish a specific goal, then by all means, let the games begin.
SEJeff 11y ago
How would it be worse if only a very select number of companies / powers are going to space? We won't be going to space to get to the local supermarket, so I am genuinely unsure how your analogy makes any sense.