Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Arakui2 t1_iz078y5 wrote

"A run of the mill space war or minot debris cascade will do just fine" That is kessler, you are describing kessler.

2

simcoder t1_iz07pra wrote

How so?

1

Arakui2 t1_iz08h6i wrote

Kessler syndrome, by definition, is a debris cascade in LEO. When you describe a "minor debris cascade" you are therefore, by definition, describing kessler syndrome.

3

simcoder t1_iz08pom wrote

So no runaway chain reaction required for your version of Kessler? What if a wrench fell of the Space Shuttle, would that qualify as Kessler Syndrome?

0

Arakui2 t1_iz08tq7 wrote

Any space debris in LEO adds to kessler syndrome, yes.

2

simcoder t1_iz08yl4 wrote

Is a wrench falling off the Space Shuttle Kessler Syndrome?

−1

Arakui2 t1_iz0983m wrote

Kessler syndrome is a cumulative effect. Not a single quantifiable object. To imply you can measure or quantify kessler is ridiculous. It is purely theoretical, and an outdated theoretical framework at that.

2

simcoder t1_iz09cfn wrote

It's a simple question. Yes or no. Would a wrench falling off the space shuttle qualify as Kessler Syndrome?

0

Arakui2 t1_iz09r4x wrote

1). No, it is not a simple question. These are advanced theoretical orbital mechanics, not primary school math equations.

2). Since the wrench is space debris, it would add to the cumulative effect of kessler syndrome. It is not kessler syndrome by itself because the argument you are presenting is a misreading and misrepresentation of what kessler syndrome is. Stop trying to quantify theoretical cumulatives, it makes you look stupid.

2

simcoder t1_iz0ac2j wrote

So it's not Kessler Syndrome. I agree. lol

The crazy thing is that whether or not a particular debris field or cascade qualifies as Kessler Syndrome really doesn't affect my core argument. If anything a space war leading to a runaway chain reaction helps solidify my argument.

−1

simcoder t1_iz0fgpd wrote

For some reason I can't reply to your last reply but here's my response anyway :P

My point with the whole "Kessler or no" debate was that you don't need a full on Kessler to have a dramatic impact on LEO and beyond.

If you really must die on the hill of "it's all Kessler", that's fine. A full on Kessler makes my point even more dramatically. If you think all space debris can be construed as Kessler, that's great. I'm happy for you. I disagree but it's mostly irrelevant to my main argument.

−1

Arakui2 t1_iz0gyds wrote

While you are correct in your statement that you don't need a full kessler to affect LEO, you are vastly overestimating the amount of debris that would be needed to create a kessler of significant enough size to stifle spaceflight on any level. The volume of upper LEO is so vast that there simply aren't enough satellites there to create a debris field big enough in the first place, not even mentioning how difficult it would be to create the debris initially, considering pracitcal studies conducted by the US military have shown that current ASATs are impractical at best, entirely useless at worst.

3

simcoder t1_iz0idpk wrote

Let's say Elon deploys his dream of a 30k constellation and that thing runaway chain reacts with each other.

Very often, you'll hear from the fanbase that could happen but it wouldn't be a big deal because it will all deorbit in 5 years.

But it actually would be a very big deal for everyone involved in space. Anything between the upper shells and the ground would likely be very negatively affected up to and including getting destroyed.

A lot of people would likely end up being very very unhappy that the hubris of a 30k constellation caused the world to have to put their space ambitions on hold for 5 years and sacrifice whatever got in the way of the carnage.

What you're doing here is very similar.

A space war generating a bunch of debris would be very bad for space business and could cause either a partial or complete shutdown of space while everything clears out. Any debris higher than VLEO would likely have knock-on effects for years or decades down the road.

And the very fact we had the first space war resulting in a bunch of space assets getting blown up would likely have a significant cooling of people's space ambitions in general. And could result in earth orbit becoming a military no man's land if the military tensions continue.

0

Arakui2 t1_iz0k2ud wrote

Ugh. Not this shit again. I'll go through it real quick because I can't be bothered arguing with people who ignore common sense specifically when it come to starlink.

1- Starlink satellites cannot and will not collide. Spacex keeps them at different altitudes and monitors them constantly, with redirections taking place if they are on course for a collision. Spacex will never allow a collision to occur as it hurts them more than anyone else.

2- Any debris from a starlink collision will burn up in the upper atmosphere within 90 days, it is physically impossible for it to stay in orbit. The 5 year number is with constant firing of their ion engines, not without them.

3- I have explained this time and time again. There is not enough potential debris his high LEO to stifle spaceflight. LEO has more than enough but it will all burn up within a small time frame.

4- If you're going so be this whataboutist over this, war in space would be a war on the ground too. It would go nuclear, and humanity would be wiped out. Therefore, there is not point in even considering a kessler beyond that.

2

simcoder t1_iz0lgsc wrote

I was just quoting the number the original Kessler guy used.

"We are talking at most 5 years for all the debris to clear out, at which point LEO is open again."

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/zch0c8/comment/iyyg9n6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

lol

​

I think the point still stands though. You're basically saying a space war would be no big deal because space is big and Starlink is low.

But I think that's horrifically oversimplifying things. You yourself mentioned the elephant in the room, ie nuclear war. All of this plays into that. And further calls into question the aggressive militarization of space given it could lead to that.

It's like you guys are making my argument for me. :P

0

Arakui2 t1_iz0lyuz wrote

You miss that he was talking about everything in LEO, yet you specifically mentioned starlink which is far less susceptible to the point of it being impossible to create a kessler.

And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Space is big, starlink can't create a kessler, and a space war will never happen just like a nuclear war will never happen. You aren't even arguing anything anymore, so it isn't possible for me to argue for you lmao

2

simcoder t1_iz0mkdf wrote

A nuclear will never happen? lol

I didn't realize that you were so naive...

And a space war is almost certain to happen eventually. Same with a nuclear war. That's what humans do. It's a shame but that's reality for you.

To ignore that sad reality of humanity just makes it that much more likely when go around aggressively militarizing space.

0

Arakui2 t1_iz0msv9 wrote

A nuclear war will never happen and to imply one will is ironically more naive than thinking that one won't.

2

simcoder t1_iz0mw0m wrote

That makes absolutely zero sense. But at least you're consistent.

0

Arakui2 t1_iz0nb6c wrote

You make absolutely zero sense and are inconsistent, so at least i have one good quality

3

simcoder t1_iz0nhta wrote

Well you gotta hang onto what you got amirite? Good luck out there! :P

1