6 ms·

Can't wait to be boiled alive on this stupid planet because we filled space with garbage.

ladberg 6y ago
If it makes you feel any better it's pretty much impossible to make Earth less habitable than anywhere else in a few light years, so I wouldn't worry about missing out on a space-paradise!
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Modern economy: hold my beer and watch the exponent.
- larkeith 6y ago
  Throw enough nukes around and Europa might start to look a pleasant alternative.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    At that point Kessler syndrome will be the least of our problems.
  - ars 6y ago
    Every nuke on earth would not do that. The Earth is really big, and even a nuke would not affect a large portion of it.
- baq 6y ago
  well if we continue growing energy consumption 1% yoy, we boil off oceans in 400 years
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    DO you have a source for this? I cant't find something for 2400, but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#Projections_based_on_the_RCPs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... the prediction of the IPCC for 2300 is an increase of 3.0 to 12.6 °C that is really bad but by far not enough to start boiling the oceans.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - baq 6y ago
      https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ i heartily recommend the whole series. i made a mistake in the post before - the post assumes 2.3% yoy.
      - srtjstjsj 6y ago
        The article shows that 2.3% is an extreme upper bonnet because humanity has already lost its need of ability to generate 2.3% more growth per year. It's another case of people looking at a logistic graph and pretending it's exponential
        baq 6y ago
        that's the underlying theme of the series - it shows that exponential growth of economy is tied to exponential growth of energy consumption and it's something economists can't quite wrap their heads around.
xvector 6y ago
From my understanding of Kessler syndrome after reading more about it - only LEO would be locked out for a couple of centuries, even in a worst-case scenario. We should still be able to go beyond that with minimal repercussions. This is in conflict with the Kurzgesagt video. I wonder what their source was for the Kessler effect preventing excursions into space altogether.
- chillfox 6y ago
  How exactly do you propose reaching higher orbits without going through LEO first?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    You go through LEO, you just don't park there. Think direct insertion into higher-altitude orbits, in the style beginners in Kerbal Space Program do it - i.e. going straight up through LEO and only then turning sideways to gain orbital velocity. The risk will be much lower (you'll be spending very little time in the band filled with hypervelocity bullets), but it'll also be much more expensive. You'll need a much bigger rocket.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Cogito 6y ago
    How do you get to the outer solar system without going through the asteroid belt? We don't worry about hitting an asteroid if going through the belt, because the density of objects is so low. If you wanted to stay in the asteroid belt you would have many more opportunities for a collision, so avoiding asteroids becomes a lot more important.
- vectorcrumb 6y ago
  Not an AE, but from my understanding of orbital mechanics, I think we usually use a LEO orbit to insert payloads into higher orbits or onto escape trajectories. Even Starship, which could be considered a next gen orbital vehicle, relies on LEO for reloading fuel before leaving Earth.

If it makes you feel any better it's pretty much impossible to make Earth less habitable than anywhere else in a few light years, so I wouldn't worry about missing out on a space-paradise!

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Modern economy: hold my beer and watch the exponent.
larkeith 6y ago
Throw enough nukes around and Europa might start to look a pleasant alternative.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  At that point Kessler syndrome will be the least of our problems.
- ars 6y ago
  Every nuke on earth would not do that. The Earth is really big, and even a nuke would not affect a large portion of it.
baq 6y ago
well if we continue growing energy consumption 1% yoy, we boil off oceans in 400 years
- gus_massa 6y ago
  DO you have a source for this? I cant't find something for 2400, but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway#Projections_based_on_the_RCPs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... the prediction of the IPCC for 2300 is an increase of 3.0 to 12.6 °C that is really bad but by far not enough to start boiling the oceans.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - baq 6y ago
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ i heartily recommend the whole series. i made a mistake in the post before - the post assumes 2.3% yoy.
    - srtjstjsj 6y ago
      The article shows that 2.3% is an extreme upper bonnet because humanity has already lost its need of ability to generate 2.3% more growth per year. It's another case of people looking at a logistic graph and pretending it's exponential
      - baq 6y ago
        that's the underlying theme of the series - it shows that exponential growth of economy is tied to exponential growth of energy consumption and it's something economists can't quite wrap their heads around.

xvector 6y ago

From my understanding of Kessler syndrome after reading more about it - only LEO would be locked out for a couple of centuries, even in a worst-case scenario. We should still be able to go beyond that with minimal repercussions. This is in conflict with the Kurzgesagt video. I wonder what their source was for the Kessler effect preventing excursions into space altogether.

chillfox 6y ago
How exactly do you propose reaching higher orbits without going through LEO first?
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  You go through LEO, you just don't park there. Think direct insertion into higher-altitude orbits, in the style beginners in Kerbal Space Program do it - i.e. going straight up through LEO and only then turning sideways to gain orbital velocity. The risk will be much lower (you'll be spending very little time in the band filled with hypervelocity bullets), but it'll also be much more expensive. You'll need a much bigger rocket.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- Cogito 6y ago
  How do you get to the outer solar system without going through the asteroid belt? We don't worry about hitting an asteroid if going through the belt, because the density of objects is so low. If you wanted to stay in the asteroid belt you would have many more opportunities for a collision, so avoiding asteroids becomes a lot more important.
vectorcrumb 6y ago
Not an AE, but from my understanding of orbital mechanics, I think we usually use a LEO orbit to insert payloads into higher orbits or onto escape trajectories. Even Starship, which could be considered a next gen orbital vehicle, relies on LEO for reloading fuel before leaving Earth.