3 ms·

You make 1 in 1000 sound peachy. Imagine if you had a 1 in 1000 chance of collision every time your 747 crossed the ocean. In 50 years I hope we are doing 50 s

by tfha 8y ago

You make 1 in 1000 sound peachy. Imagine if you had a 1 in 1000 chance of collision every time your 747 crossed the ocean. In 50 years I hope we are doing 50 space launches a day. At that volume, every single debris item is risk and headache. 10 years later and we've got a full 2,000 golf balls left in orbit? That's a lot. There have actually been casualties to blowing up the FY-1C? That's also significant. These things get worse as we put more in space. If each explosion takes out on average 1 victim satellite per 5,000 satellites, and generates 1/100th the debris of the original explosion, we've got a cascade at just 500,000 total objects in orbit. That may seem like a lot compared to the 5,000 we have today, but already we are discovering materials and technologies that are useful which can only be manufactured in free-fall. If orbital manufacturing ever takes off, 500,000 objects in orbit will be nothing.

danielvf 8y ago
The space shuttle had 135 flights, of which 2 were TPK’s. So a 1 in 68 chance of failure. And that’s on a man-rated launch system. The Russians have been having 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 non-human rated rockets failing. So even compared to our non-Kessler Syndrome world, a 1 in 1000 risk is almost insignificant. However, what I’m really comparing it to is the popular perception - that Kessler means hundreds of years of humanity trapped on earth - In which case 999 non-issues in 1000 is fantastic. And that’s with a magical worst case.
ogre_magi 8y ago
Dude, actually read. He said: >If every satellite we have put into space magically exploded, and the debris was magically moved to a high LEO altitude and evenly distributed to avoid any holes, then we could still launch through this orbit of death to higher altitudes with only a 1 in 1000 probability of impact. Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. If you don't know anything about orbital mechanics or the fine details of spaceflight, don't smug about Kessler Syndrome. It's really vapid.

by tfha 8y ago

danielvf 8y ago

The space shuttle had 135 flights, of which 2 were TPK’s. So a 1 in 68 chance of failure. And that’s on a man-rated launch system. The Russians have been having 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 non-human rated rockets failing. So even compared to our non-Kessler Syndrome world, a 1 in 1000 risk is almost insignificant. However, what I’m really comparing it to is the popular perception - that Kessler means hundreds of years of humanity trapped on earth - In which case 999 non-issues in 1000 is fantastic. And that’s with a magical worst case.

ogre_magi 8y ago

Dude, actually read. He said: >If every satellite we have put into space magically exploded, and the debris was magically moved to a high LEO altitude and evenly distributed to avoid any holes, then we could still launch through this orbit of death to higher altitudes with only a 1 in 1000 probability of impact. Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine. If you don't know anything about orbital mechanics or the fine details of spaceflight, don't smug about Kessler Syndrome. It's really vapid.