4 ms·

> It is not similar to garbage in the ocean. No, it's much much worse [1]. Startups need to start following regulations. This "move fast and break things" ment

• jklinger410 9y ago
  I'm not sure how >the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges unfeasible for many generations. Is worse than the collapse of the entire ecosystem. Care to elaborate?
  • dvtv75 9y ago
    You're the one who introduced "collapse of the entire ecosystem," nobody that you've replied mentioned it. We would lose a lot if denied access to orbit. For example, satellite communications, intel satellites would be gone, as well as weather satellites. Imagine the impact that would have on weather models and forecasting, and by extension farm productivity. Google Maps and the like would rapidly become out of date, and satellite phones would no longer work. It'd be a disaster and while I'm sure we'd find ways to mitigate many aspects of it, there would still be a serious impact on our entire civilization.
    • jklinger410 9y ago
      You are correct that I introduced the collapse of the entire ecosystem. That's what garbage in the ocean does. Which is why it is fundamentally different than garbage in space. Because garbage in space is not going to make life on planet earth unsuitable any time soon. Which is also why it is not "much much worse" to have garbage in space than in the ocean. Keep downvoting me though because that's how people handle being disagreed with buried in replies that no rational people are reading.