5 ms·
You are right - it's not apocalyptic. Particularly, since satellites in general are getting much lighter than they used to be (faster decay times, less mass in
by danielvf 9y ago
You are right - it's not apocalyptic.
Particularly, since satellites in general are getting much lighter than they used to be (faster decay times, less mass in case of a collision, smaller target), as well as targeting lower orbits than we used to (most go to 400km-500km now).
Also, even in the event of everything in LEO blowing up, we can still launch to farther orbits / other planets.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> Also, even in the event of everything in LEO blowing up, we can still launch to farther orbits / other planets. It'd be risky though, since you have to cross LEO to get there (unless you're willing to pay the extra cost of launching to absurd inclinations and correcting in space).
- jandrese 9y agoIt would take an unbelievably catastrophic Kessler syndrome to make it too dangerous to boost through LEO. It's not a game of Asteroids, we're talking about collisions on a yearly or possibly monthly timeframe. Bad enough to ruin LEO for satellites, but not so bad that it blocks you from space entirely.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoI still think a believably catastrophic Kessler syndrome would be risky enough that NASA and others would refrain from sending manned missions through LEO at low inclinations. It's not a game of Asteroids, but it's also not as thin as the asteroid belt.