Oh hey the exact consequence I said would happen.
Guess we got to build that telescope on the far side of the moon, then.
That would only work until some oligarchic asshole decided that moon’s orbit deserves it’s own dose of the tragedy of the commons.
One man has control over the widest-spanning and quickest-to-establish communication systems during natural disaster scenarios. He has previously used this control to affect military operations of sovereign nations. He also has control over one of the largest social media platforms. Now, he is in the ear of the soon-to-be worlds most powerful person. (Assuming that person isnt already him, himself.)
Get involved locally before it is too late for your community.
The Eye of the Storm, The Anarchist Response to Hurricane Helene
And possibly also cause Kessler syndrome.
No, it couldn’t. That’s pure misinformation.
Kessler syndrome is only a possibility in orbits high enough that atmospheric drag is negligible. Starlink, by design, is at an altitude where the atmosphere is still thick enough to bring any debris or old satellites down to earth in a timely fashion rather than building up like Kessler syndrome requires. (To be clear, the air is still so thin that you’d need sensitive instruments to detect it at all. It’s just enough to produce a tiny amount of drag, which adds up over weeks or months to lower the debris’ orbit so that it meets thicker air)
There are plenty of perfectly legitimate objections you can raise to starlink without resorting to Kessler syndrome
There seem to be a significant number of people who disagree with you.
https://www.space.com/starlink-satellite-conjunction-increase-threatens-space-sustainability
https://interestingengineering.com/science/kessler-syndrome-spacex-starlink-orbital-chaos
https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/downloads/m326m255z?filename=Walker_Avery
It’s not possible with these satellites as they’re too low in orbit and can only stay up for 3-5 years before burning up in the atmosphere. It doesn’t matter if you can find people to agree with you as I could easily find a dozen links from people claiming the earth is flat.
Just to be clear… you believe because the satellites are low enough that they will only last a few years, that they cannot run into each other and cause a cascading effect of debris? I mean, sure, the cascading effect (Kessler Syndrome) might only last a few years, but it still could happen, couldn’t it? Or is there something special about them that means they can’t actually accidentally run into each other and break apart, with the pieces hitting other satellites and breaking apart…?
I’m not sure why these satellites being in low orbit protects them from the laws of physics.
You’re talking about the Kessler Effect (cascading collisions) not Kessler Syndrome (space is unusable). I never stated that they can’t collide with one another just that they’re not capable of trapping us on earth for any significant period of time due to their low orbit.
facepalm
Right, I understand you now. You are being pedantic about the definition of Kessler Syndrome, assuming people are using it to refer to a permanent status. Gotcha.
In short, you don’t disagree, you just aren’t using the same words to mean the same thing as everyone else, leading to confusion and conflict.
Kessler Syndrome, even if it “only” lasts a few years, would be devastating. That is what people are worried about, and that is what could happen, even with low earth orbits. Given big enough pieces of debris, the “any significant period of time” you refer to could certainly be significant enough to cause lasting problems.
I’m not sure why they think they know better than the multiple scientists I have given them references to.
Oh no wait, yes I do. They refuse to look at the links.
Well, where are the dozen links?
Except that my links quote scientists.
For example:
“Right now, the number of maneuvers is growing exponentially,” Hugh Lewis, a professor of astronautics at the University of Southampton in the U.K. and a leading expert on the impact of megaconstellations on orbital safety, told Space.com. “It’s been doubling every six months, and the problem with exponential trends is that they get to very large numbers very quickly.”
Data compiled by Lewis shows that, in the first half of 2021, Starlink satellites conducted 2,219 collision-avoidance maneuvers. The number grew to 3,333 in the following six-month period ending in December 2021 and then doubled to 6,873 between December 2021 and June 2022. In the second half of 2022, SpaceX had to alter the paths of its satellites 13,612 times to avoid potential collisions. In the latest report to the FCC, the company declared 25,299 collision-avoidance maneuvers over the past six months, with every satellite having been made to move an average of 6 times.
“Right now, every six months, the number of maneuvers that are being made doubles,” said Lewis. “It has gone up by a factor of 10 in just two years, and if you project that out, you’ll have 50,000 within the next six-month period, then 100,000 within the next, then 200,000, and so on.”
But a professor of astronautics is basically the same as a flat Earther, am I right?
Also, I literally included an academic paper.
“Right now, every six months, the number of maneuvers that are being made doubles,” said Lewis. “It has gone up by a factor of 10 in just two years, and if you project that out, you’ll have 50,000 within the next six-month period, then 100,000 within the next, then 200,000, and so on.”
The number of maneuvers increased as they increased the number of satellites in orbit, which shouldn’t be surprising to anyone. To claim that this is going to follow an exponential curve approaching infinity is ignorant at best and disinformation at the worst because they have a hard limit on how many satellites they need. The guy you’re quoting qualified that statement with “right now” right at the beginning of the quote.
In addition to this, an increased number of maneuvers has no bearing on whether these LEO satellites will cause Kessler Syndrome as you claimed in your previous comment. They’re in too low of an orbit to do that.
That’s quite the heel-turn from “I could easily find a dozen links from people claiming the earth is flat,” but congratulations on taking a tiny bit of effort and reading the first paragraph of one of the many links I posted when I quoted it to you.
I’m sure looking at the academic paper I gave you wouldn’t even be worth the time of someone with your expert knowledge.
Weird, though, that you say you could “easily find a dozen links from people claiming the earth is flat” and yet have provided no links to support your actual claim.
Would you get off that?
Sure, as soon as you read the links I have already provided, including the academic paper, and respond to them, unlike the other person I am talking to.
