Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don’t seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max.
Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I’m wrong.
I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn’t doom us much more than our current course as a species already is.
Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we’re at an impasse.
just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn’t mean I’m bad at math.
And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel.
You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try
The problem why you are unconvinced is you don’t understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets.
This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts.
I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely.
I think it’s kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy “turning into reddit”, while also reverting to personal insults.
I didn’t realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it’s worth, you’re right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it’s so wildly unlikely that it’s not meaningful to consider.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I’d send a distant affirmation of support.
Thanks. I mean, it’s not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don’t think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does.
Pulling them out of my ass, mostly. Like, the people I know in the field don’t seem overly worried, but my own opinion mostly comes from a general awareness that stuff in LEO comes down eventually, and that for the orbit the Starlink Stuff is on, that would probably mean a few years max.
Not my field, and if I actually research it, I might find I’m wrong.
I still maintain that even a complete loss of launch and orbital capability, while of course a great and horrible disaster, wouldn’t doom us much more than our current course as a species already is.
I’m sorry but physics calculations have no room for opinion
Sure, but you seem to also present an opinion, based on sentiment from your friends. Since we both seem to lazy to actually figure it out properly, I feel we’re at an impasse.
just because I went Comp Sci when they went aerospace doesn’t mean I’m bad at math.
And the math has always said that all it takes is 1/4th of a ball bearing at orbital speeds to turn a satellite into a cloud of millions of shards of ridiculously fast shrapnel.
You can literally see the results in any physics simulation you care to try
The problem why you are unconvinced is you don’t understand the mass given to every object at orbital speeds and all of your personal experience has been with relatively slow moving things like race cars and jets.
This is literally a case of you being too ignorant to understand the danger while simultaneously being so arrogant as to dismiss the quietly whispered warnings of terrified experts.
Ah, just like reddit
I do get the energy/velocity aspect, what I am less sure on is whether it is likely that enough material would be placed on courses through higher orbits that a chain reaction in those becomes likely.
I think it’s kinda funny to be annoyed about Lemmy “turning into reddit”, while also reverting to personal insults.
I didn’t realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it’s worth, you’re right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it’s so wildly unlikely that it’s not meaningful to consider.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I’d send a distant affirmation of support.
Thanks. I mean, it’s not like I came to this argument with an full and detailed understanding of the orbital mechanics involved, but I don’t think they did either, while displaying the confidence of someone that does.
Have you ever seen that demonstration with the tennis ball and the yoga ball and the tennis ball gets launched way way up?
Thats what happens to the part on the opposite side of the collision, easily, EASILY ejecting debris into higher orbits
Yeah, I feel like we’re not getting anywhere, and neither of us seems to have the energy to cite any evidence, so let’s just agree to disagree.
I already cited the initial paper I’m not sure what the fuck you think you did to deserve more free labor out of me
You did?