32 ms·
Indeed. Problems are things to be solved, not a reason to put up blockers preventing things from happening. Kessler syndrome is even greatly misunderstood beca
by mlindner 3y ago
Indeed. Problems are things to be solved, not a reason to put up blockers preventing things from happening.
Kessler syndrome is even greatly misunderstood because of movies like Gravity. People think of it as one satellite getting kicked over and then there's a sudden chain reaction of satellite after satellite being destroyed in the time span of hours/days. When in fact it's likely that Kessler syndrome is probably already happening, but it's hard to tell.
The solution is to pass new laws on satellite disposal so the problem doesn't get worse and over time figure out methods to dispose of what's up there. The most important things to get rid of are the very large debris as those can act as nexuses for further debris generation as they're "worn away" by other particulate dust debris and micrometeorites.
- palata 3y ago> Problems are things to be solved, not a reason to put up blockers preventing things from happening. Unless the problem is that those things are happening, in which case the solution is to put up blockers...
- mlindner 3y agoNot really what I was saying. I'm talking about being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist, primarily focused around appeals to nature and digging for reasons that can be used as an excuse to justify the appeal to nature. If the end result of your thinking is "this has too many bad effects so we can never do this entire category of thing" then you've gone off the cliff. The solution is to fix the bad side effects while continuing the beneficial thing rather than saying you can't do anything at all.
- haswell 3y agoIs anyone talking about being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist? This seems like a straw man. The article raises concerns and calls for more studies.