3 ms·

If things got that bad I think there’d be increased incentive to invent something to clean it up. It’s a very hard problem, but it doesn’t seem impossible to de

If things got that bad I think there’d be increased incentive to invent something to clean it up. It’s a very hard problem, but it doesn’t seem impossible to deal with, I think it just requires fairly extreme intervention. I think most orbits naturally decay, too, so there’d be a time limit even if we couldn’t clean things up.

i_haz_rabies 5y ago
I wonder if there isn't already a team at SpaceX or something working on a few moonshot solutions.
- bell-cot 5y ago
  SpaceX probably has several rough-draft plans for mopping up dangerous orbiting debris sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere. BUT - So long as SpaceX avoids being seen as "at fault", any Kessler sh*t-storms that occur are likely to prove huge opportunities for SpaceX, and huge problems for all of their competitors. Most debris-storm clean-up ideas require plenty of launches, to get the Wonder Widgets and Space Squeegees into orbit. Likewise the replacements for all the smashed satellites. Which replacements may be substantially heavier, due to beefed-up propulsion systems for debris dodging, armor protection around their vitals, etc. And guess what company is the world's miles-ahead provider of low-cost orbital launch services, with an easy path to oh-so-profitable scaling up?
  - datameta 5y ago
    It's an appealing narrative but Kessler Syndrome is something that would stand in the way of Musk's primary mission of getting us set up on Mars. So even if one holds the belief that he is highly profit motivated beyond the scope of funding his main project, it should be evident that this would divert much needed resources and time that put a hamper on the Mars timeline. I highly recommend the Starbase tour with Everyday Astronaut, especially Part 3 [0], for perhaps the best existing look into his thought process and development philosophy. Throughout the tour he comes across as humble, ready to incorporate ideas and truly entertain questions from a studied layman. What also really speaks for him is how he is treated by his employees, how he treats them, and how involved he is with the ground level of the operation. It is evident to what deep level of urgency and importance he approaches the undertaking that SpaceX is and so I do not believe they would seek to profit from controlling Kessler Syndrome. [0] https://youtu.be/9Zlnbs-NBUI https://youtu.be/9Zlnbs-NBUI
    - bell-cot 5y ago
      > ...and so I do not believe they would seek to profit from controlling Kessler Syndrome. I get the feel that logic from /Hollywood/tropes/James_Bond/ is being assumed here. In a simplistic action movie, it's reasonable to say "IF $Charismatic_Corporate_Leader profited from $Bad_Thing happening, THEN he is Totally Evil, secretly controls $Bad_Thing, and caused it to happening as part of his Evil Plans". The Real World(tm) isn't like that. Elan and SpaceX don't control Kessler Syndrome. They are not the U.N. Space Police*. (Cripes, they can't even get timely launch approvals from the FAA, or a more sensible exclusion zone at the Cape!) "Failing" to have detailed plans & preparations for an orbital sh*t-storm - IF they don't cause it, and aren't badly damaged by it - is no more evil than "failing" to donate $75 million to African famine relief. *Not a real thing. The point is that SpaceX ain't the law, ain't the sovereign, and ain't on some government contract to provide space emergency services & disaster relief. (FWIW, I found the first two Starbase tour videos more interesting. Admittedly, they had the advantage of being ~3x longer.) (Edit - formatting issue from an un-escaped '*' character.)
      - datameta 5y ago
        Perhaps instead of "control kessler syndrome" I should have used "mitigate" to be more clear in what I am saying. I am not merely implying that SpaceX wouldn't cause it to profit from it, but that they would actively try to avoid it and not let it happen through inaction. (Perhaps they would work toward solving it if it looks to be progressing quicker than anticipated and SpaceX seems best poised to tackle it) Also a not-so-relevant nitpick - I wouldn't call Elon charismatic. Perhaps in a room full of engineers he may be. Nevertheless I still applaud him for learning how to be more personable in the corporate world. Agreed, the first two videos were more captivating in their window into Musk's technical thought process (during which I took notes!) and the current SpaceX developments. The third struck me as a unique look into his everyday dealings while at the same time driving home how important he feels the entire undertaking is. The tone is different in the 3rd one. Much more of a serious message in contrast to the euphoric geekery in the first two.
  - testplzignore 5y ago
    This would be a great plot for a Bond film. I think Daniel Radcliffe would make for an interesting casting choice for Musk.
    - bell-cot 5y ago
      Um... Who would be the villain? What's his evil plan? My comment was analogous to "If COVID gets really bad, then Elan's Eatery has more outdoor seating and a better location for curb-side pickup than any other restaurant in town." (Yes, I know that "Moonraker" was an extremely profitable Bond film. No matter how idiotic the [cough][gag]science in it was, Hugo Drax was trying to wipe out most of humanity.)
LeifCarrotson 5y ago
It sounds like you're shrugging off the problem, ignoring the advice of experts who are suggesting we need to make changes now and deciding instead that you'll ask those same experts to fix the problem later when their predictions come true; allowing intuition, incentives to continue current behavior, and resistance to change to determine your course of action. But intuitions fail when it comes to how mind-bogglingly big and fast space is. The volume you might need to sift through has an area equal to the surface of the entire planet and a height of thousands of kilometers. The objects you're trying to grab are moving at >20,000 km/hr. Low orbits do decay naturally in a few decades, yes, but MEO and GEO orbits can take thousands to millions of years to decay. It's like being a war zone where bullets that are fired continue ricocheting through the air for decades, and these objects are moving ten times faster than a typical bullet (and may weigh hundreds of kg). We're laying a minefield and not even keeping track of where the mines are laid. The least we can do is to keep track of and share the satellite orbits.
- didericis 5y ago
  I’m not shrugging off the problem, and people should be extremely wary to the point where I think it makes sense to portray the situation as if we would be locked to earth forever if it got out of hand so cleanup is never necessary. However I think people underestimate ingenuity and the ability to solve the cleanup problem if we really have to. I don’t know how much effort has really be invested in hitting that cleanup problem as hard as possible, as most discussion about it currently is theoretical, and there isn’t a lot of financial benefit to researching it. If it starts preventing launches, then the incentives to hit the problem harder increase. It’d obviously be better not to be forced into figuring out whether that problem is solvable, my point is it’s not set in stone that it’s an unsolvable problem, and the incentives are currently such that I don’t think we can consider possible solutions adequately explored.
- didericis 5y ago
  I think we’re also currently tracking most existing debris fairly comprehensively/that seems to be the part of the problem currently receiving the most attention, and rightfully so. As of right now tracking debris and trying not to create more of it seems like the best way forward

i_haz_rabies 5y ago

I wonder if there isn't already a team at SpaceX or something working on a few moonshot solutions.

bell-cot 5y ago
SpaceX probably has several rough-draft plans for mopping up dangerous orbiting debris sitting in a filing cabinet somewhere. BUT - So long as SpaceX avoids being seen as "at fault", any Kessler sh*t-storms that occur are likely to prove huge opportunities for SpaceX, and huge problems for all of their competitors. Most debris-storm clean-up ideas require plenty of launches, to get the Wonder Widgets and Space Squeegees into orbit. Likewise the replacements for all the smashed satellites. Which replacements may be substantially heavier, due to beefed-up propulsion systems for debris dodging, armor protection around their vitals, etc. And guess what company is the world's miles-ahead provider of low-cost orbital launch services, with an easy path to oh-so-profitable scaling up?
- datameta 5y ago
  It's an appealing narrative but Kessler Syndrome is something that would stand in the way of Musk's primary mission of getting us set up on Mars. So even if one holds the belief that he is highly profit motivated beyond the scope of funding his main project, it should be evident that this would divert much needed resources and time that put a hamper on the Mars timeline. I highly recommend the Starbase tour with Everyday Astronaut, especially Part 3 [0], for perhaps the best existing look into his thought process and development philosophy. Throughout the tour he comes across as humble, ready to incorporate ideas and truly entertain questions from a studied layman. What also really speaks for him is how he is treated by his employees, how he treats them, and how involved he is with the ground level of the operation. It is evident to what deep level of urgency and importance he approaches the undertaking that SpaceX is and so I do not believe they would seek to profit from controlling Kessler Syndrome. [0] https://youtu.be/9Zlnbs-NBUI https://youtu.be/9Zlnbs-NBUI
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    > ...and so I do not believe they would seek to profit from controlling Kessler Syndrome. I get the feel that logic from /Hollywood/tropes/James_Bond/ is being assumed here. In a simplistic action movie, it's reasonable to say "IF $Charismatic_Corporate_Leader profited from $Bad_Thing happening, THEN he is Totally Evil, secretly controls $Bad_Thing, and caused it to happening as part of his Evil Plans". The Real World(tm) isn't like that. Elan and SpaceX don't control Kessler Syndrome. They are not the U.N. Space Police*. (Cripes, they can't even get timely launch approvals from the FAA, or a more sensible exclusion zone at the Cape!) "Failing" to have detailed plans & preparations for an orbital sh*t-storm - IF they don't cause it, and aren't badly damaged by it - is no more evil than "failing" to donate $75 million to African famine relief. *Not a real thing. The point is that SpaceX ain't the law, ain't the sovereign, and ain't on some government contract to provide space emergency services & disaster relief. (FWIW, I found the first two Starbase tour videos more interesting. Admittedly, they had the advantage of being ~3x longer.) (Edit - formatting issue from an un-escaped '*' character.)
    - datameta 5y ago
      Perhaps instead of "control kessler syndrome" I should have used "mitigate" to be more clear in what I am saying. I am not merely implying that SpaceX wouldn't cause it to profit from it, but that they would actively try to avoid it and not let it happen through inaction. (Perhaps they would work toward solving it if it looks to be progressing quicker than anticipated and SpaceX seems best poised to tackle it) Also a not-so-relevant nitpick - I wouldn't call Elon charismatic. Perhaps in a room full of engineers he may be. Nevertheless I still applaud him for learning how to be more personable in the corporate world. Agreed, the first two videos were more captivating in their window into Musk's technical thought process (during which I took notes!) and the current SpaceX developments. The third struck me as a unique look into his everyday dealings while at the same time driving home how important he feels the entire undertaking is. The tone is different in the 3rd one. Much more of a serious message in contrast to the euphoric geekery in the first two.
- testplzignore 5y ago
  This would be a great plot for a Bond film. I think Daniel Radcliffe would make for an interesting casting choice for Musk.
  - bell-cot 5y ago
    Um... Who would be the villain? What's his evil plan? My comment was analogous to "If COVID gets really bad, then Elan's Eatery has more outdoor seating and a better location for curb-side pickup than any other restaurant in town." (Yes, I know that "Moonraker" was an extremely profitable Bond film. No matter how idiotic the [cough][gag]science in it was, Hugo Drax was trying to wipe out most of humanity.)

LeifCarrotson 5y ago

It sounds like you're shrugging off the problem, ignoring the advice of experts who are suggesting we need to make changes now and deciding instead that you'll ask those same experts to fix the problem later when their predictions come true; allowing intuition, incentives to continue current behavior, and resistance to change to determine your course of action. But intuitions fail when it comes to how mind-bogglingly big and fast space is. The volume you might need to sift through has an area equal to the surface of the entire planet and a height of thousands of kilometers. The objects you're trying to grab are moving at >20,000 km/hr. Low orbits do decay naturally in a few decades, yes, but MEO and GEO orbits can take thousands to millions of years to decay. It's like being a war zone where bullets that are fired continue ricocheting through the air for decades, and these objects are moving ten times faster than a typical bullet (and may weigh hundreds of kg). We're laying a minefield and not even keeping track of where the mines are laid. The least we can do is to keep track of and share the satellite orbits.

didericis 5y ago
I’m not shrugging off the problem, and people should be extremely wary to the point where I think it makes sense to portray the situation as if we would be locked to earth forever if it got out of hand so cleanup is never necessary. However I think people underestimate ingenuity and the ability to solve the cleanup problem if we really have to. I don’t know how much effort has really be invested in hitting that cleanup problem as hard as possible, as most discussion about it currently is theoretical, and there isn’t a lot of financial benefit to researching it. If it starts preventing launches, then the incentives to hit the problem harder increase. It’d obviously be better not to be forced into figuring out whether that problem is solvable, my point is it’s not set in stone that it’s an unsolvable problem, and the incentives are currently such that I don’t think we can consider possible solutions adequately explored.
didericis 5y ago
I think we’re also currently tracking most existing debris fairly comprehensively/that seems to be the part of the problem currently receiving the most attention, and rightfully so. As of right now tracking debris and trying not to create more of it seems like the best way forward