3 ms·

> Kessler syndrome You do understand that at the altitude they are flying at even if they fucked everything in LEO (nearly impossible anyway) we'd be fine in a

> Kessler syndrome You do understand that at the altitude they are flying at even if they fucked everything in LEO (nearly impossible anyway) we'd be fine in a decade right? Few things give me as much hope for the future of mankind then seeing the starlink constellation come online. Almost nothing is as clear of a milestone in human advancement. The fact that a dedicated billionaire can drive this gives me a great deal of faith we can handle all the climate issues.

mandmandam 5y ago
I'm not a Kessler expert. But the people who are say this shit is terrifying. Are you an expert? Why would we be fine in a decade? - do you understand how reliant we are on being able to launch shit into space? Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event, even in your optimistic scenario? Who's regulating this - anyone? What accountability and oversight mechanisms are in place - maybe the FCC, who recently cited thousands of fake and stolen identities identical support to justify killing net neutrality? A billionaire launching 12,000 satellites, which will necessitate 67,000 collision-adjustments a year is a "milestone in human achievement" because... ? Slightly cheaper phone and internet? And this gives you "faith we can handle all the climate issues" - my jaw drops every time I read that. I think you are vastly overestimating billionaires power to fix anything, and wildly underestimating the scale of our "climate issues". You speak as if you have confidence that you're right on this, but you give no indication that you understand the scope of these issues at all. Kessler and climate change aren't "things will work themselves out" kind of scenarios.
- ghufran_syed 5y ago
  you may have missed the point that the starlink satellites are in really low orbits. Everything in that orbit, whether a working satellite or orbital debris will deorbit in a few years due to atmospheric drag. I’m not sure it’s terribly healthy for you to be worrying this much about things that you admit you don’t really understand?
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    Additionally, I hypothesise that orbital colissions usually result in loss of altitude. A satellite doesn't just migrate to a higher orbit. Higher orbits require higher velocities, therefore require energy input. For a collision to result in higher orbits it would have to be either with a rogue (not orbiting) object that caught up, or an object in a highly eliptical object that caught up. Head on collisions transform kinetic energy into other forms including thermal, therefore reducing the velocities of both objects.
- rlt 5y ago
  > Why would we be fine in a decade? Because physics. Atmospheric drag at those altitudes causes orbits to decay to the point of deorbit in a matter of years. > 67,000 collision-adjustments a year Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? Because there are millions (billions?) of those happening daily, and we don’t think twice about it. There will be the occasional unmaneuverable satellite, but I expect Starship (which SpaceX has said is essentially necessary for the success of Starlink) will be cheap enough within a decade to be the “tow truck” for broken down satellites.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    > Because physics. "Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event". > Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? NASA are concerned, as are MIT. And the Europeans Space Agency. Satellites only have so much fuel. Radar can only track so much. Tiny pieces of debris can cause a chain reaction. So, unless you have a better analogy than fucking cars, consider me unconvinced.
    - rlt 5y ago
      My point was “number of collision adjustments” makes for a nice scary sounding statistic but alone it’s not a good indicator of risk. The vast majority of those would not have resulted in a collision even without collision avoidance maneuvers. But we do have collision avoidance, and SpaceX knows when a satellite will run out of fuel and can deorbit.
qsdf38100 5y ago
What do you think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg ? Could you debunk that debunk video?
- schiffern 5y ago
  De-debunk: https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_written_post_about_how_wrong_common/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_...

mandmandam 5y ago

I'm not a Kessler expert. But the people who are say this shit is terrifying. Are you an expert? Why would we be fine in a decade? - do you understand how reliant we are on being able to launch shit into space? Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event, even in your optimistic scenario? Who's regulating this - anyone? What accountability and oversight mechanisms are in place - maybe the FCC, who recently cited thousands of fake and stolen identities identical support to justify killing net neutrality? A billionaire launching 12,000 satellites, which will necessitate 67,000 collision-adjustments a year is a "milestone in human achievement" because... ? Slightly cheaper phone and internet? And this gives you "faith we can handle all the climate issues" - my jaw drops every time I read that. I think you are vastly overestimating billionaires power to fix anything, and wildly underestimating the scale of our "climate issues". You speak as if you have confidence that you're right on this, but you give no indication that you understand the scope of these issues at all. Kessler and climate change aren't "things will work themselves out" kind of scenarios.

ghufran_syed 5y ago
you may have missed the point that the starlink satellites are in really low orbits. Everything in that orbit, whether a working satellite or orbital debris will deorbit in a few years due to atmospheric drag. I’m not sure it’s terribly healthy for you to be worrying this much about things that you admit you don’t really understand?
- alexvoda 5y ago
  Additionally, I hypothesise that orbital colissions usually result in loss of altitude. A satellite doesn't just migrate to a higher orbit. Higher orbits require higher velocities, therefore require energy input. For a collision to result in higher orbits it would have to be either with a rogue (not orbiting) object that caught up, or an object in a highly eliptical object that caught up. Head on collisions transform kinetic energy into other forms including thermal, therefore reducing the velocities of both objects.
rlt 5y ago
> Why would we be fine in a decade? Because physics. Atmospheric drag at those altitudes causes orbits to decay to the point of deorbit in a matter of years. > 67,000 collision-adjustments a year Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? Because there are millions (billions?) of those happening daily, and we don’t think twice about it. There will be the occasional unmaneuverable satellite, but I expect Starship (which SpaceX has said is essentially necessary for the success of Starlink) will be cheap enough within a decade to be the “tow truck” for broken down satellites.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  > Because physics. "Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event". > Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? NASA are concerned, as are MIT. And the Europeans Space Agency. Satellites only have so much fuel. Radar can only track so much. Tiny pieces of debris can cause a chain reaction. So, unless you have a better analogy than fucking cars, consider me unconvinced.
  - rlt 5y ago
    My point was “number of collision adjustments” makes for a nice scary sounding statistic but alone it’s not a good indicator of risk. The vast majority of those would not have resulted in a collision even without collision avoidance maneuvers. But we do have collision avoidance, and SpaceX knows when a satellite will run out of fuel and can deorbit.

qsdf38100 5y ago

What do you think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg ? Could you debunk that debunk video?

schiffern 5y ago
De-debunk: https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_written_post_about_how_wrong_common/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_...