News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by xvector on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @02:56AM (#24773897)
Kessler syndrome - hundreds of thousands of tiny shards would explode at the point of impact ripping into other satellites and rendering them defunct (causing more collisions). An exponential growth would occur which would result in Earth orbit being unusable. This might effectively lock use of Earth orbit away for centuries.

See the video by Kurzgesagt - “End of Space: Creating a Prison for Humanity.” [1]

[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by brmgb on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @05:30AM (#24774772)
Space is extremely large and mostly empty. People tend to misunderstand Kessler syndrome a lot because they build their idea on faulty representations. For example, if you go to the wikipedia article on Kessler syndrome, you will see an image where centimeters long debris are symbolised by kilometers wide dots.

> This might effectively lock use of Earth orbit away for centuries.

It would make exiting earth orbit and placing an object there significantly more complicated because you would need to take into account debris, probably detect them from the object and manoeuvre a lot more but it wouldn't entirely lock up use of Earth orbit. It would also be a solvable situation. Cleaning debris is doable.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by ppljudge on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @10:43PM (#24784318)
Agreed. There must be some illustration to give us a better idea of how vast the orbitable area is.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by mlang23 on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:21AM (#24774046)
This somehow reminds me of Seveneves by Neal Stephenson. Its not the same story of course, but I cant help but think of the book.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by xvector on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:24AM (#24774066)
I really enjoyed the first third of the book, the second third was decent too. I had to drop it when I got to the last third, it just became too boring.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by mlang23 on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @05:17AM (#24774704)
Same here. I felt like the book could actually end after the remaining women decided on genetic manipulations. What followed thereafter was quite boring, and I stopped reading it as well. Actually sad, because the backstory is likely just preparation for what follows. But it was just too boring to go on.

Prompted by a comment from someone yesterday, I actually replayed the Snow Crash audiobook in the evening. Comparing SC and SE I notice that SC feels quite juvenile. I didnt notice that as much when I first read it in my 20s. But these days, it feels a bit too much over the top. Contrary to that, SE somehow feels too grown up.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by j4nt4b on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @12:18PM (#24778326)
Completely agree. He overwrote himself into a blind corner - wasted so much time describing the orbital mechanics of chains that my eyes rolled all the way up into the back of my head, completely spoiled any remote semblance of hard sci-fi he had going with the surprise Ur-Middle Earth origin story, and finally never justified all the self-indulgence with even a single word about the agent.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by iainmerrick on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @06:13AM (#24775002)
I haven’t read Seveneves, but that describes many Neal Stephenson novels. The Diamond Age is the clearest example for me -- brilliant beginning, with a really compelling setting; confused middle; terrible ending.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by tialaramex on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @01:51PM (#24779442)
I don't get why people dislike the end of The Diamond Age in particular.

Spoilers. Like, I mean, this isn't a plot summary, but this is in some sense what happens so look away now if you wish you didn't know:

The Primer has been calling her Princess Nell for a long time. Once you realise what's going on with the vast number of "specially adapted" Primers for the orphan girls, that Princess has got a ready made tribe with shared values in the form of the Mouse Army, waiting for her say so.

The whole book has been telling you that in this era what matters isn't control over a land mass, which is what the Fists are fighting for in the Leased Territories on behalf of Han, but a Tribe with shared values.

The Mouse Army shows up, rescues Nell and takes her to her mother. The Victorian Queen recognises Nell as the leader of a novel but important tribe.

The novel is flawed in many usual Stephenson ways (e.g. use of rape in place of actual character development) but I don't know what people expected from these endings, they seemed perfectly satisfactory to me on multiple re-readings.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by jlmorton on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:38AM (#24774153)
Yeah, you didn't miss much. Fantastic book nonetheless.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by johncalvinyoung on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @12:03PM (#24778165)
Hated that book, after reading a bunch of Stephenson's others. Preordered it even. Highly disappointed.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by kfarr on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:24AM (#24774074)
Yeah our satellites just need a huge asteroid clearing the way if the worst happens
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by staticassertion on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:00AM (#24773919)
Can't wait to be boiled alive on this stupid planet because we filled space with garbage.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by ladberg on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:15AM (#24774008)
If it makes you feel any better it's pretty much impossible to make Earth less habitable than anywhere else in a few light years, so I wouldn't worry about missing out on a space-paradise!
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by TeMPOraL on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:22AM (#24774054)
Modern economy: hold my beer and watch the exponent.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by larkeith on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:53AM (#24774243)
Throw enough nukes around and Europa might start to look a pleasant alternative.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by saagarjha on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @04:46AM (#24774520)
At that point Kessler syndrome will be the least of our problems.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by ars on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @11:13AM (#24777421)
Every nuke on earth would not do that. The Earth is really big, and even a nuke would not affect a large portion of it.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @04:45AM (#24774515)
well if we continue growing energy consumption 1% yoy, we boil off oceans in 400 years
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by gus_massa on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @06:17AM (#24775029)
DO you have a source for this? I cant't find something for 2400, but from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P... the prediction of the IPCC for 2300 is an increase of 3.0 to 12.6 °C that is really bad but by far not enough to start boiling the oceans.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @07:33AM (#24775408)
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

i heartily recommend the whole series. i made a mistake in the post before - the post assumes 2.3% yoy.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by srtjstjsj on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @08:37AM (#24775795)
The article shows that 2.3% is an extreme upper bonnet because humanity has already lost its need of ability to generate 2.3% more growth per year. It's another case of people looking at a logistic graph and pretending it's exponential
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by baq on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @11:16AM (#24777462)
that's the underlying theme of the series - it shows that exponential growth of economy is tied to exponential growth of energy consumption and it's something economists can't quite wrap their heads around.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by xvector on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:27AM (#24774089)
From my understanding of Kessler syndrome after reading more about it - only LEO would be locked out for a couple of centuries, even in a worst-case scenario. We should still be able to go beyond that with minimal repercussions.

This is in conflict with the Kurzgesagt video. I wonder what their source was for the Kessler effect preventing excursions into space altogether.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by MarkMarine on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:54AM (#24774247)
LEO is pretty important, first we have people there right now, and with the notable exceptions of weather and GPS, everything I take for granted in life that works because of satellites is in LEO. Not having it for 150 years would make space exponentially more expensive in every way.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by jasonwatkinspdx on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @04:43AM (#24774499)
The Kurzgesagt videos are well produced but aren't the greatest for accuracy in the details on a lot of topics, sadly.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by vectorcrumb on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:53AM (#24774246)
Not an AE, but from my understanding of orbital mechanics, I think we usually use a LEO orbit to insert payloads into higher orbits or onto escape trajectories. Even Starship, which could be considered a next gen orbital vehicle, relies on LEO for reloading fuel before leaving Earth.
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by chillfox on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:47AM (#24774213)
How exactly do you propose reaching higher orbits without going through LEO first?
Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by TeMPOraL on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @03:59AM (#24774276)
You go through LEO, you just don't park there. Think direct insertion into higher-altitude orbits, in the style beginners in Kerbal Space Program do it - i.e. going straight up through LEO and only then turning sideways to gain orbital velocity.

The risk will be much lower (you'll be spending very little time in the band filled with hypervelocity bullets), but it'll also be much more expensive. You'll need a much bigger rocket.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by Cogito on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @07:24AM (#24775359)
How do you get to the outer solar system without going through the asteroid belt?

We don't worry about hitting an asteroid if going through the belt, because the density of objects is so low.

If you wanted to stay in the asteroid belt you would have many more opportunities for a collision, so avoiding asteroids becomes a lot more important.

Re:Monitoring a high risk conjunction between two large defu... by yreg on Wednesday October 14, 2020 @06:13AM (#24775004)
Kortila is asking why is a head-on colision worse than non-head-on.