3 ms·
That would be fairly nonsense. There's _very_ few orbits that can stick over a particular place, and it's only places on the equator. We'd be giving up 99+% of
by kadoban 3mo ago
That would be fairly nonsense. There's _very_ few orbits that can stick over a particular place, and it's only places on the equator. We'd be giving up 99+% of useful orbits.
- kube-system 3mo agoI think most current wars in progress have much less logical reasons for happening
- kadoban 3mo agoIt's possible, it would just be _very_ dumb. It'd also turn into just...shooting them all down, restrictions of who anything is over wouldn't survive.
- kube-system 3mo agoIt wouldn't be an all-or-nothing type scenario -- and in fact there is already no common international agreement about where a nation's boundary extends to in the z-axis. The observed limit is "however high that country can detect and shoot something down"
- kadoban 3mo agoOnce you start getting shooty up in space, I think you fairly quickly get into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome cascades of collisions and debris anyway, so it probably wouldn't matter. > in fact there is already no common international agreement about where a nation's boundary extends to in the z-axis. The observed limit is "however high that country can detect and shoot something down" That's the thing though, if you use that definition then 99.9+% of them are fair game, because _only_ ones around equator at a specific height are at a fixed point. Otherwise they migrate a lot and what country they're over would depend on what second you look.
- lenkite 3mo agoIf Russia had been the one to launch over ten thousand satellites in mega-constellations occupying LEO space, there would have already been a dozen senate hearings all talking about extraordinary and imminent threat to US national security and urgent need to eliminate the problem.