6 ms·

That would be quite dumb. Whatever you put in that orbit will decay within a few years. Given the current situation, USA/SpaceX is in a far better position to

by audunw 4y ago

That would be quite dumb. Whatever you put in that orbit will decay within a few years. Given the current situation, USA/SpaceX is in a far better position to quickly repopulate LEO with satellites when the debris has fallen down. In that case, they may send up satellites armed with weapons that can shoot down anything being launched into orbit to create debris again. I don't think entering into that kind of conflict with USA is a winning proposition for China unless they have their own Falcon 9 or Starship-like rocket.

outworlder 4y ago
> In that case, they may send up satellites armed with weapons that can shoot down anything being launched into orbit to create debris again. What happened to the outer space treaty?
- modeless 4y ago
  Ripped up as soon as you started intentionally trying to create Kessler syndrome...
- gojomo 4y ago
  In some hypothetical hot conflict where a major belligerent nation had already started taking down satellites and/or polluting orbits, the treaty will have already become a 'dead letter'.
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  As long as they're not using nukes I don't think compliance with the OST would be an issue
- TMWNN 4y ago
  Let me guess: You're one of those people who said that the US Space Force "violated the treaty" because it "weaponizes space", right? The treaty bans weapons of mass destruction in space. It does not ban military activity in space at all.
sangnoir 4y ago
> Given the current situation, USA/SpaceX is in a far better position to quickly repopulate LEO with satellites when the debris has fallen down It's far cheaper to heft tens of thousands of ball bearings into orbit vs a single satellite. You can give them a nice spread so you have a space shotgun that ruin an orbit for years at a time. The decay is a bonus to the attacker[1] because they can a go all out during wartime, without impacting their long-term space-faring program. 1. The decay also allows the same armaments to cover a larger vertical slice of the orbit.
- basementcat 4y ago
  You mean like Project West Ford? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    I was thinking having the projectiles being aerodynamic may increase decay time, then realized you can have the launch vehicle use solar power to fire the metal spheres using a railgun mechanism. This way, you can get vastly larger areas of denial by firing at an angle perpendicular to that of travel. You can have an every-shifting debris field if you fire 2 ball-bearings (port and starboard) every 10-50 meters to make that entire altitude unusable[1] - not just a specific orbit. Edit: 1. The perigee and apogee will differ for projectiles fired from port or starboard based on launch vehicle inclination and the resulting relative speeds to earth. It would be a nightmare to track and avoid the resulting mess.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> USA/SpaceX is in a far better position to quickly repopulate LEO with satellites when the debris has fallen down Until china threatens musks other factories and he voluntarily decided that defense isn’t a good business for SpaceX. Or maybe he’ll do what he did with Ukraine and advocate for china just to end the war (probably due to business risk of Tesla et al).
- simondotau 4y ago
  Tesla might be the most profitable business Musk is involved in, but SpaceX is nearest and dearest to his heart. It’s worth more to Musk than one factory which, after Berlin and Austin finish ramping up, will represent just one quarter of their global factory capacity. IMHO, I think would be more likely that Musk would divest his entire ownership of Tesla than do anything which would compromise the long-term mission of SpaceX.
  - pencilguin 4y ago
    Do you think you know the long term mission of SpaceX? It certainly is not colonizing Mars, no matter what Elon claims. Nothing SpaceX is known to be working on is anywhere close to adequate for that. My own guess is it is to get the US military dependent on him. Then he can write himself billion-dollar checks. NASA is just for practice.
  - vineyardmike 4y ago
    I don’t think he’d have that luxury. Especially not if a situation snuck up as they often do in war. Not that I think any of this is likely. 25% of their factory output is a lot. Sure it’s an amount that won’t leave the company in ruin, but it’s a lot. Teslas growing stock price basically funds all of spaceX so divesting is unlikely. Realistically, SpaceX filled the mission musk had. It proved that space is viable with better tech. They’re really beholden to the government and he won’t be able to shake that.
    - simondotau 4y ago
      It is simply wrong on the evidence that Tesla’s stock rise funds SpaceX. It is a profitable business and funds itself. And SpaceX doesn’t hold any Tesla stock as far as I’m aware. My point is that he would divest ownership of Tesla before allowing himself to be blackmailed over SpaceX. I’m not saying that he wouldn’t care if the factory in China shut, though I am saying he might prefer that over SpaceX being neutered.

by audunw 4y ago

outworlder 4y ago

> In that case, they may send up satellites armed with weapons that can shoot down anything being launched into orbit to create debris again. What happened to the outer space treaty?

modeless 4y ago
Ripped up as soon as you started intentionally trying to create Kessler syndrome...
gojomo 4y ago
In some hypothetical hot conflict where a major belligerent nation had already started taking down satellites and/or polluting orbits, the treaty will have already become a 'dead letter'.
Rebelgecko 4y ago
As long as they're not using nukes I don't think compliance with the OST would be an issue
TMWNN 4y ago
Let me guess: You're one of those people who said that the US Space Force "violated the treaty" because it "weaponizes space", right? The treaty bans weapons of mass destruction in space. It does not ban military activity in space at all.

sangnoir 4y ago

> Given the current situation, USA/SpaceX is in a far better position to quickly repopulate LEO with satellites when the debris has fallen down It's far cheaper to heft tens of thousands of ball bearings into orbit vs a single satellite. You can give them a nice spread so you have a space shotgun that ruin an orbit for years at a time. The decay is a bonus to the attacker[1] because they can a go all out during wartime, without impacting their long-term space-faring program. 1. The decay also allows the same armaments to cover a larger vertical slice of the orbit.

basementcat 4y ago
You mean like Project West Ford? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
- sangnoir 4y ago
  I was thinking having the projectiles being aerodynamic may increase decay time, then realized you can have the launch vehicle use solar power to fire the metal spheres using a railgun mechanism. This way, you can get vastly larger areas of denial by firing at an angle perpendicular to that of travel. You can have an every-shifting debris field if you fire 2 ball-bearings (port and starboard) every 10-50 meters to make that entire altitude unusable[1] - not just a specific orbit. Edit: 1. The perigee and apogee will differ for projectiles fired from port or starboard based on launch vehicle inclination and the resulting relative speeds to earth. It would be a nightmare to track and avoid the resulting mess.

vineyardmike 4y ago

> USA/SpaceX is in a far better position to quickly repopulate LEO with satellites when the debris has fallen down Until china threatens musks other factories and he voluntarily decided that defense isn’t a good business for SpaceX. Or maybe he’ll do what he did with Ukraine and advocate for china just to end the war (probably due to business risk of Tesla et al).

simondotau 4y ago
Tesla might be the most profitable business Musk is involved in, but SpaceX is nearest and dearest to his heart. It’s worth more to Musk than one factory which, after Berlin and Austin finish ramping up, will represent just one quarter of their global factory capacity. IMHO, I think would be more likely that Musk would divest his entire ownership of Tesla than do anything which would compromise the long-term mission of SpaceX.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  Do you think you know the long term mission of SpaceX? It certainly is not colonizing Mars, no matter what Elon claims. Nothing SpaceX is known to be working on is anywhere close to adequate for that. My own guess is it is to get the US military dependent on him. Then he can write himself billion-dollar checks. NASA is just for practice.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  I don’t think he’d have that luxury. Especially not if a situation snuck up as they often do in war. Not that I think any of this is likely. 25% of their factory output is a lot. Sure it’s an amount that won’t leave the company in ruin, but it’s a lot. Teslas growing stock price basically funds all of spaceX so divesting is unlikely. Realistically, SpaceX filled the mission musk had. It proved that space is viable with better tech. They’re really beholden to the government and he won’t be able to shake that.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    It is simply wrong on the evidence that Tesla’s stock rise funds SpaceX. It is a profitable business and funds itself. And SpaceX doesn’t hold any Tesla stock as far as I’m aware. My point is that he would divest ownership of Tesla before allowing himself to be blackmailed over SpaceX. I’m not saying that he wouldn’t care if the factory in China shut, though I am saying he might prefer that over SpaceX being neutered.