3 ms·

I am not sure how the works out either, but Donald Kessler's paper [1] on the subject might help. Kessler syndrome [2] is named after him. The exponent seems to

I am not sure how the works out either, but Donald Kessler's paper [1] on the subject might help. Kessler syndrome [2] is named after him. The exponent seems to be controlled by the number of objects launched per year, i.e. the rate. ---------------------------------------- [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110515132446/http://webpages.charter.net/dkessler/files/Collision%20Frequency.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110515132446/http://webpages.c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

jacquesm 5y ago
I'm aware of the Kessler syndrome but never made that particular connection, I always thought it came down to a feed forward mechanism that started with a single collision, but it makes good sense that the chances of such collisions go up as the number of launches increases. So effectively, roughly paraphrasing GP's comment is that if the launch rate remains constant at its current historical high level (and it could easily go up further) and this leads to more objects in space (which is a safe assumption) then the moment of the triggering of the Kessler syndrome gets moved forward in time, would that be correct?
- randallsquared 5y ago
  > the triggering of the Kessler syndrome gets moved forward in time If you have a number of events, like meetings, moving one forward is putting it first, or earlier. But if you have a single event, with no notional queue, wouldn't moving it to an earlier point in time be "moved backward in time"? :)