The only orbit with enough satellites in it for Kessler is LEO, and thats do to starlink. Simply put the other orbits are not at risk, and will remain that way for the mid future. Also you specifically said locking us out of LEO in your first comment.

>Plus, once you have your first space war, that changes the dynamic of space entirely. There's no guarantee that you can go back to the honeymoon period of space utilization that we enjoy right now. Denial could become the long term strategy.

>The notion of proliferating the militarization of space is pure insanity. It has a logic to it but is still insane nonetheless. And to do it unilaterally and, to some extent, by choice, makes the US the baddies.

There was never a period if time space wasn't militarized. The very first thing we did was develop spy and communication satellites. The fact is the second a serious face war started ASATs were hitting ever military bird they could, and the only counter to that is hitting early warning satellites could be seen as the opening to a preemptive nuclear strike.

And to call the US the badies when every other country that can is doing the same is just a dumb America Bad argument. Or did you forget OneWeb is owned in part by the British government?

That is correct, however there isn't enough stuff in those orbits for Kessler Syndrome. Meanwhile the satellites they are referring to in the article are SSO observation satellites and Starlink. All of which are in sub 600km orbit. And for the near future we have SpaceX announcing Starsheild, which is Starlink satellite busses used for military purposes, and that will link into the Starlink network forcing it into a similar height.

Sub 600km is the only place with the necessary density, but also the safest place to have it happen.

Leo is the least susceptible to Kessler, and also the quickest to clean up. We are talking at most 5 years for all the debris to clear out, at which point LEO is open again.

Orion laughs in your general direction

Atleqst for the UK, the outlets are diffrent because ring circuits are an abomination.

Scramble jets, sausage, toast, and marmalade? Ewwwww

You're all liers like my ex-ex-husband

By volume, its a few cubic feet a year per reactor. 97% of nuclear waste isn't the spent fuel, its low to mid radioactive things, like worn out components of a reactor, or clothing worn inside the reactor building.

Then they take off on whatever runway they want, preferably the one pointing closest to their destination. Runways are long enough you can take off and land without a headwind, the wind just makes it a little easier.

Absolutely wrong. Wake turbulance is always an issue regardless of the wind direction. Even on a day with a perfect headwind you leave a space between flights to allow the wake turbulance to disappear. The reason stated in the OP is the entire reason we take off into the wind, and it has been that way since the Wright Brothers, where the turbulance left behind was effectively negligible.

The second interpretation does not make physical sense as the plane will immediately leave the treadmill. The only way to make that short of treadmill work is to put it in a wind tunnel, at which point the airplane takes off anyways.

It creates controversy because people think the wheels are important to it moving, not because of the treadmill size.

WHAT DID YOU SAY? I COULDN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY EARS MELTING.