3 ms·
In a major-war-between-superpowers situation, maybe "nobody can get into orbit" is preferable to one side controlling space unilaterally? Though I suppose thin
by elihu 5y ago
In a major-war-between-superpowers situation, maybe "nobody can get into orbit" is preferable to one side controlling space unilaterally? Though I suppose things would have to be really bad to deny access to space even on a short-term basis. The more plausible scenario maybe just that most of the commercial satellites get destroyed by and become debris, and nothing can occupy certain orbits for any significant length of time without getting hit eventually. Which means that short-term use of space for military objectives would be the least-impacted use case.
- yread 5y agoyou have a point, ICBMs fly up to 2000km so if there is a ton of debris at 400 km we are good. Well, unless you need to worry also about nuclear cruise missiles, torpedos, short range ballistic missiles, hacking civilian infrastructure and conventional weapons.
- PeterisP 5y agoI'm not sure if Kessler syndrome would prevent ICBMs - it wouldn't prevent things from getting to space, it would prevent things from getting to space safely. If there's a 50% chance of a destructive impact, manned flights are right out, but firing hundreds of ICBMs would still be reasonably effective.