undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnicce5mo ago0 comments

> Kessler cascades are localised to specific orbits. In low-earth orbit, they're a problem for a few years.

> They're going to be annoying. But not catastrophic.

I think there is a misunderstanding about the whole term. If it is not a big problem, then it does not meet the definition. So there must be some threshold where they aren't problem. What is that threshold? Because certainly there isn't space for infinite amount of objects. Primary question is that whether that threshold matters on practice. If it is 70k, then it is certainly a problem, but who knows the exact number yet.

> Highest level?

There is always the one which is classified orbiting on the highest level in LEO. Also that object can get destroyed; which means it will start deorbiting and with a chance to hit some other object below.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross5mo ago

> What is that threshold?

Way beyond anything we can currently achieve with current and planned launch capacity or radio technology.

> that object can get destroyed; which means it will start deorbiting and with a chance to hit some other object below

Got it, altitude.

Yes, in theory. In practice, the odds of that happening are vanishingly low. If it did happen, the volumes we're talking about are still so big that you'd struggle to come up with a way to cause a third collision even if we remove satellites' abilities to marginally change their orbits.

nicceOP5mo ago

> Way beyond anything we can currently achieve with current and planned launch capacity or radio technology.

How are you so sure, when scientist have been debating this for decades?

> Got it, altitude.

Quibbling isn't an argument.

JumpCrisscross5mo ago

> when scientist have been debating this for decades?

They have been. That's what I'm basing my arguments on.

You've been mentioning a ca. 70,000-bird limit. I think that comes from Bongers & Torres [1]. Their paper runs LEGEND (LEO-to-GEO Environment Debris Model). It does not distinguish between LEO and GEO. That's material because the natural decay period for an object in LEO is on the order of months to years, for LEO, to decades to centuries, for GEO.

Kessler in GEO? Real problem. If you wanted to be a space terrorist, you could probably engineer a cascade today that would make large sections of GEO unusuable for decades if not centuries. The point is that isn't possible for LEO, where you may make a mess in a few orbits for a few years at best.

> Quibbling isn't an argument

Sorry, wasn't quibbling. I genuinely couldn't tell what you meant by "highest level." (I was picturing a food chain, where big clouds of debris "eat" smaller satellites in their way.)

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...

Dylan168075mo ago

> If it is not a big problem, then it does not meet the definition.

It's still a big problem to wipe out low orbit, but it's not a long lasting one.

> What is that threshold? Because certainly there isn't space for infinite amount of objects.

Even if you crash a billion objects together at 300km, they're all going to go away in a few years. There is no threshold for semi-permanently ruining low orbit.

JumpCrisscross5mo ago

> still a big problem to wipe out low orbit

You're not wiping out LEO, but a particular LEO.

lxgr5mo ago

Why would there be a single numeric threshold?

You can pack many, many satellites into the same orbit without any danger, for example – as long as they move in the same direction. Let's make it 1000 for this thought experiment.

On the other hand, just two moving in opposite directions are obviously going to crash.

So is the number of "safe satellites in all of LEO" 1000 or 1?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsnicce5mo ago0 comments

> Kessler cascades are localised to specific orbits. In low-earth orbit, they're a problem for a few years.

> They're going to be annoying. But not catastrophic.

> Highest level?

0 comments

JumpCrisscross5mo ago

> What is that threshold?

Way beyond anything we can currently achieve with current and planned launch capacity or radio technology.

> that object can get destroyed; which means it will start deorbiting and with a chance to hit some other object below

Got it, altitude.

nicceOP5mo ago

> Way beyond anything we can currently achieve with current and planned launch capacity or radio technology.

How are you so sure, when scientist have been debating this for decades?

> Got it, altitude.

Quibbling isn't an argument.

JumpCrisscross5mo ago

> when scientist have been debating this for decades?

They have been. That's what I'm basing my arguments on.

> Quibbling isn't an argument

Sorry, wasn't quibbling. I genuinely couldn't tell what you meant by "highest level." (I was picturing a food chain, where big clouds of debris "eat" smaller satellites in their way.)

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...

Dylan168075mo ago

> If it is not a big problem, then it does not meet the definition.

It's still a big problem to wipe out low orbit, but it's not a long lasting one.

> What is that threshold? Because certainly there isn't space for infinite amount of objects.

Even if you crash a billion objects together at 300km, they're all going to go away in a few years. There is no threshold for semi-permanently ruining low orbit.

JumpCrisscross5mo ago

> still a big problem to wipe out low orbit

You're not wiping out LEO, but a particular LEO.

lxgr5mo ago

Why would there be a single numeric threshold?

You can pack many, many satellites into the same orbit without any danger, for example – as long as they move in the same direction. Let's make it 1000 for this thought experiment.

On the other hand, just two moving in opposite directions are obviously going to crash.

So is the number of "safe satellites in all of LEO" 1000 or 1?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse