3 ms·

I'm not sure the analogy holds - again, most of this debris would be occupying a relatively narrow region of space surrounding Earth, and it wouldn't simply dec

I'm not sure the analogy holds - again, most of this debris would be occupying a relatively narrow region of space surrounding Earth, and it wouldn't simply decay after a few orbits. Thinking of kessler syndrome as some impenetrable shell of bullets misses the forest for the trees, i think. It doesn't take much debris to render a region of space unsafe for humans or multi-million dollar satellites. To attempt extend your analogy: you might be confident that most of the juice was washed out of the mug after a few cycles set to scour, but if you are deathly allergic to any exposure to oranges, what's your risk tolerance? Make sure you clean the dishwasher trap, as well. :)

robonerd 4y ago
> what's your risk tolerance? That's the key question the whole matter hangs on, but there's no objective answer for it. Neil Armstrong privately estimated his chance for successfully returning to earth at 90%. That's alarmingly low! That's barely safer than Russian roulette. Determining how much risk can be tolerated means figuring out how badly you want the thing. The more you want something, the more risk you can tolerate. Satellites are extremely important to our society, so governments would continue launching the satellites they value most, even if the expected lifespan of the satellite due to space debris was very short. Of course, superfluous and casual use of space would grind to a halt. One of many casualties of war.