Comments
Wrexem t1_iywmve9 wrote
I think a plain old tungsten rod is all that is required. The orbital mechanics/guidance is the hard part.
HerbaciousTea t1_iyx692p wrote
The whole "rods from god" idea is pretty silly and impractical.
The force of the rod is purely gravitational potential.
But to put the rod in orbit, you expended far more energy fighting gravity, then you get back from dropping the rod.
So why not just use the rocket that delivered the rods as the weapon instead of the rods? It's got more kinetic energy and can be guided, and it doesn't have the drawbacks of being strapped to a highly visible satellite that every hobbyist with a telescope can track at all times.
Not to mention it can carry things, like, y'know, a warhead, which will deliver much more force to a target for less weight, meaning you can dedicate that freed-up weight to making a more maneuverable, longer range, precision guided weapon to deliver that force even more accurately.
Which is exactly what we already do today. That's a missile.
OozeNAahz t1_iyxk8bo wrote
It isn’t meant to provide the same capability as a missile. They have, as you say, missiles for that. The benefit of the rods from god are basically that they offer the advantages of a ballistic missile without a boost stage that can be intercepted. So you have a kinetic energy weapon that can’t really be stopped. Unless you stop them from being launched or take out the satellites before someone goes to use them.
Just different use cases.
HerbaciousTea t1_iyy7aks wrote
When the US Air Force examined the concept in 2003, they concluded that conventional bombs and missiles of a similar weight were more effective, cost efficient, and practical solutions in basically all circumstances.
OozeNAahz t1_iyy9zey wrote
And every one of them has a different use case. A bomber has to fly over a target and that can be really obvious. A satellite can hang out and short of shooting it down countries can’t do much about it. There are things rods from god can do that the others can’t do exactly the same way. Doesn’t mean they are better or worse. Every tool has its task.
jerricco t1_iyyi1am wrote
True as this may be, the USAF is generally pretty forward thinking. The fact its not been outright stated as a dumb idea and had to be compared in feasibility to missiles is telling. More telling is that the single biggest barrier is getting materials up into space.
Thats a problem we could at some point very likely solve and the Air Force knows it. The first to these gates secures their domination of the planet for the next century or so. The rods are still in god's back pocket.
theolderyouget t1_iyxqkb4 wrote
Well… once they are up there, they are just up there. Orbiting. Lingering. Ready. And you don’t get a warning when they are put into play, not really. Just…
HERES YOUR SPACE RODS!!!
creativemind11 t1_iyxe4ca wrote
The only real benefit of a rod would IMO be that it can potentially penetrate very deep in the ground or hardened structures without the need of a nuclear explosion. Besides that maybe a slightly faster deployment time.
But in the event you'd use a weapon like this itd mean nukes are probably on table already.
fail-deadly- t1_iyyn2fm wrote
I think if it ever happened, they would be in highly eccentric orbits with the perigee close to likely targets.
Makhnos_Tachanka t1_iyz55hb wrote
Great now we just need to wait several days for the target to align itself with the orbit at the right time and ah fuck they shot it down
Dont____Panic t1_iyxv5fv wrote
Rods can’t as easily be detected and stopped. That’s all.
cuddlefucker t1_iyyy9sb wrote
Inherently everyone would know that rods exist on orbit and would destroy them before they reach an orbital position to deploy.
Unlike aiming conventional munitions, on-orbit maneuvering is extremely difficult and would be pretty easy to counter. Every nation that we would need that kind of yield from would be able to shoot the bus carrying the rod which would almost certainly disable the ability to accurately de-orbit it.
Basically, they are easily detectable and way easier to stop than any other weapon of mass destruction.
ergzay t1_iyzjj1v wrote
The real reason for the rods from god idea was because it would bypass the outer space treaty about no nuclear weapons in orbit while still providing significant damaging energy potential. That's why it was brainstormed in the first place. Meanwhile it would be hard to detect it incoming and there would be less warning than an incoming missile.
LLuerker t1_iz0wdup wrote
Imagine once they can be harvested and manufactured in space tho
dancingmeadow t1_iywei4w wrote
No wonder his staff pushed Putin down the stairs. Nuclear missiles with no nukes inside vs state of the art "zap you're dead from space" is basically caveman vs US Marines.
simcoder t1_iywnnib wrote
Proliferation and escalation in LEO sounds kind of sexy I'm sure to the military types and the associated contractors. But it's also a bit of a recipe for disaster and the subsequent losing of LEO for everyone. And then no one can make money or fun military times in space.
Just throwing that out there.
bookers555 t1_iywr5cv wrote
Sounds like they should just start working on space battleships.
JimiWanShinobi t1_iyx7mt1 wrote
On the contrary, they wouldn't last 5 minutes with all the space debris we already have in orbit, the ISS often has to keep changing its position to dodge it. We're basically at the point where we need a big fishing net to clean it all up and bring it back down, and space battleships blowing each other up will just create more debris...
bookers555 t1_iyxb57r wrote
Hey, with those ships they can go bomb each other in the middle of nowhere beyond the Moon.
Overdose7 t1_iyybfg8 wrote
Space battleships would have more armor than the ISS. As for the debris, we simply need to scale up our efforts and get to the next level: coalescing space debris into a new moon!
Amper-send t1_iyyeci4 wrote
Often? It happens once a year
JimiWanShinobi t1_iyyfmhn wrote
It happens about once a year, that means sometimes less, sometimes more. It last happened in October, very recently...
Doggydog123579 t1_iyyg53s wrote
Orion laughs in your general direction
[deleted] t1_iyxswiq wrote
[removed]
Doggydog123579 t1_iyyg9n6 wrote
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.
simcoder t1_iyyhs2h wrote
That's really only true for very low orbit. A space war is liable to contaminate much higher orbits with orders of magnitude longer decay times. I think it's kind of a much bigger issue that a lot of the fans of Space Force would like to downplay.
"At altitudes of 500 miles (800 km), the time for orbital decay is often measured in decades. Above 620 miles (1,000 km), orbital debris normally will continue circling Earth for a century or more."
Doggydog123579 t1_iyykb96 wrote
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.
simcoder t1_iyyl9ue wrote
Not all military satellites are in very low orbits. And you don't have to go full Kessler to make a real mess for decades if not centuries.
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.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyyrhgy wrote
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?
simcoder t1_iyyvc1u wrote
Kessler is a red herring. The debris from a space war is enough. And when you consider the first space war might just end the peaceful exploitation of space, that by itself should be enough to give you pause.
No one is militarizing space to the extent that the US is. Prior to the Space Force, the US had a qualitative and quantitative lead in space militarization. With Space Force escalating and proliferating militarization, that lead is only going to increase along with the tensions that come with all that saber rattling and proliferation and escalation.
And a US military space hegemony threatens everyone else's early warning systems as much or more than it protects ours. Which is a significant destabilizing factor making nuclear war and/or a space war to end that hegemony all that much more likely.
Regarding OneWeb, last I checked, the Brits aren't constantly talking about proliferating space militarization and "battles of attrition" in space. And I don't recall them creating a whole new branch of the MIC dedicated to space war.
If you're the little guy in the space military race, maybe it makes sense to rattle a bunch of sabers and talk about proliferation and coyly hint about all your fancy new space weapons.
But if you're already the top dog by a large margin and you do all that stuff, dramatically destabilizing the balance of power in space and escalating towards the first space war, that's what makes you the baddie.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyyxzhg wrote
Kessler isn't a red hearing as that is what locks us out of space. Either a war generates enough debris to cause Kessler Syndrome, or it doesn't. First case locks us out of that orbit, second case does not.
>No one is militarizing space to the extent that the US is. Prior to the Space Force, the US had a qualitative and quantitative lead in space militarization. With Space Force escalating and proliferating militarization, that lead is only going to increase along with the tensions that come with all that saber rattling and proliferation and escalation
You keep acting like we are putting weapons up there. We are adding more surveillance systems yes, but then thats not really effecting the overall balance when the US already leads by a largin margin. At also ignored everyone else wanting to do the same, or so you think China isn't going to?
>Regarding OneWeb, last I checked, the Brits aren't constantly talking about proliferating space militarization and "battles of attrition" in space. And I don't recall them creating a whole new branch of the MIC dedicated to space war.
Regardless of them talking about it or not, One Web satellites serve military purposes for the British military. Furthermore the fact they did do this shows they want more space assets as they could continue to rely on US assets as they current do.
>And a US military space hegemony threatens everyone else's early warning systems as much or more than it protects ours. Which is a significant destabilizing factor making nuclear war and/or a space war to end that hegemony all that much more likely.
How? That doesn't even make logical sense. Observation sats can not threaten other countries early warning systems. It would take actual armed spacecraft to do it, and in that case The USSR had a Cannon on a space station years ago. Meanwhile the US hasn't had anything.
>But if you're already the top dog by a large margin and you do all that stuff, dramatically destabilizing the balance of power in space and escalating towards the first space war, that's what makes you the baddie.
If the balance of power is already US>Everyone else combined, then by definition, the US adding more things can't destabilize it.
I get it, you are worried about the outcome of space getting militarized, but we past that bridge in the 60s, and pandoras box is open. But you are just blaming all of it on the US rather then accepting every country would do the exact same if they could. Atleast with the US maintaining dominance the situation remains stable, and thats the best you can hope for.
simcoder t1_iyyymx6 wrote
But we are putting weapons up there. You can keep denying it but the cat's already out of the bag (and should not be that surprising if you're being honest).
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/pentagon-posed-to-unveil-classified-space-weapon/
​
And a simple debris cascade is enough to lock us out due to debris for as long as it takes the debris to deorbit which could be decades or centuries. Beyond that, an actual war in space could change the paradigm WRT space exploration and exploitation as we currently know it. Denial may become the dominant force. Particularly given denial is much cheaper than exploitation.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyz02v9 wrote
That article literally refers to multiple ground based systems it could be, then suggests an EWAR package on a satellite. Meanwhile we know Russia and China are working on land based lasers that can blind optical satellites. Or who could forget that Chinese satellite that started chasing a US one around?
Again, the US isn't doing stuff anyone else isn't also doing. Also the USSR already set the precedent with that space Cannon that you glossed over.
>And a simple debris cascade is enough to lock us out due to debris for as long as it takes the debris to deorbit which could be decades or centuries. Beyond that, an actual war in space could change the paradigm WRT space exploration and exploitation as we currently know it. Denial may become the dominant force. Particularly given denial is much cheaper than exploitation.
Kessler syndrome is a debris cascade. I've already covered why its not worth considering.
simcoder t1_iyz17h7 wrote
“We need to take a very hard look at what capabilities we keep concealed, as in our, quote, ‘ace-in-the-hole’ capabilities, if you will, that we would only use in an actual conflict to ensure we maintain the military overmatch we would need to ensure victory, without allowing the enemy to devise ways to defeat that particular capability by having advance knowledge of it”
Which could include space based weapons or satellites that chase other satellites around. Hunter-killers if you will. Pretty much everything is on the table and it would be foolish to think that we aren't deploying weapons up there. I think at this point you (or our adversaries) just have to assume we are and hope that maybe we aren't. But I don't think it's that big of an assumption.
And, you can say a debris cascade isn't worth considering. But it actually is. A debris cascade is a big deal and it will lock us out of space for however long. Even without a cascade, a space war is going to seriously impact future space operations.
And the destabilization that comes with the US aggressively asserting its space hegemony puts the US and the world at large in as much danger as the "defense" capabilities the Space Force brings to the table.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyz2lus wrote
>Which could include space based weapons or satellites that chase other satellites around. Hunter-killers if you will. Pretty much everything is on the table and it would be foolish to think that we aren't deploying weapons up there. I think at this point you (or our adversaries) just have to assume we are and hope that maybe we aren't. But I don't think it's that big of an assumption.
China already has that. We watched them do it. My argument has never been the US isnt militarizing space. My argument is your argument is based on AMERICA BAD logic.
>And, you can say a debris cascade isn't worth considering. But it actually is. A debris cascade is a big deal and it will lock us out of space for however long. Even without a cascade, a space war is going to seriously impact future space operations.
You literally told me Kessler syndrome doesn't matter earlier, the you say this which is literally Kessler syndrome. At this point I have enough proof to say you don't know what you are talking about.
BUT
one more time. The orbital altitudes that have enough shit in them to have Kessler syndrome or a debris cascade or whatever you want to to call it are low enough that they will self clear inside of 5 years. Outside that low orbit any debris created will stay for much longer, but there isn't enough satellites to have a chain reaction that locks us out of them.
>And the destabilization that comes with the US aggressively asserting its space hegemony puts the US and the world at large in as much danger as the "defense" capabilities the Space Force brings to the table.
Again, the balance of power isn't changing in space, so it can't destabilize the current situation. I don't think you understand what destabilizing means.
simcoder t1_iyz3pv1 wrote
I think you have to assume the US already had that or something similar as well. Even before Space Force. To think otherwise would be foolish.
The balance of power is changing. The US is asserting military hegemony over space. And is also leveraging space assets to give them an insurmountable competitive advantage on the battlefield. These are both very dangerous to the continuation of the peaceful exploitation and exploration of space. This is what makes the US the baddie here. :(
And...
Again...
Kessler doesn't matter because you don't need a full on Kessler to deny access to space. A run of the mill space war or minor debris cascade will do just fine.
That's why continually repeating the Kessler red herring is a fallacious argument.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyz572d wrote
>The balance of power is changing. The US is asserting military hegemony over space. And is also leveraging space assets to give them an insurmountable competitive advantage on the battlefield. These are both very dangerous to the continuation of the peaceful exploitation and exploration of space. This is what makes the US the baddie here. :(
All stuff we already had. The balance of power isn't changing. The US military has operated on the concept of full spectrum dominance for the last 30 years, and space is part of that. The US dominating the orbitals is nothing new, and US upgrading to newer tech as it becomes feasible is exactly how its always worked. As I already have said repeatedly, we have already seen China use a micro satellite that rendezvous with others. Then we have the X-37B and Chinas copy. Or the Space shuttle having giant wings to let it literally steal a Soviet satellite then land with it before completing a full orbit.
You are acting like this is new shit. Its not.
>Kessler doesn't matter because you don't need a full on Kessler to deny access to space. A run of the mill space war or minor debris cascade will do just fine.
That is still Kessler syndrome. Kessler syndrome is simply getting enough satellites and debris up that it degrades the operational lifetime of satellites in that orbit, and it can accelerate. It never actually required the orbit to be unusabale.
simcoder t1_iyz5zcw wrote
The balance of power is changing. The US is actively discussing and building a space military hegemony capable of withstanding "battles of attrition". One would have to assume that applies not only to the observational/Starlink stuff but also the space weaponry aspects. And the US is doing it quite publicly and dare I say it flagrantly.
That combined with the military utility and competitive advantage granted by space assets such as Starlink really ups the chances that the next big US war will start in space. Or some other war will bleed over into space to deny the US or its allies the use of those competitive advantages.
It seems pretty clear that you're fixated on Kessler. Probably thinking that was an easy win for you. But it's really not all that relevant. You can keep talking about it though I guess.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyz6ooy wrote
>The balance of power is changing. The US is actively discussing and building a space military hegemony capable of withstanding "battles of attrition". One would have to assume that applies not only to the observational/Starlink stuff but also the space weaponry aspects. And the US is doing it quite publicly and dare I say it flagrantly.
Jesus christ. Read the words im writing. Literally not a single thing you have said is new. The US shot a fucking satellite down with an F-15 in the 80s. Every single DDG has had the ability to use SM-3 for a decade. You are moral grandstanding about the US being bad because it is doing the exact same thing as everyone else to keep its current position, otherwise known as keeping the balance of power stable.
>It seems pretty clear that you're fixated on Kessler. Probably thinking that was an easy win for you. But it's really not all that relevant. You can keep talking about it though I guess.
No, I just don't like people saying Kessler is some super weapon that locks us out of space for centuries because they don't understand how orbits work. You just keep bringing it up under a diffrent name for some reason.
simcoder t1_iyz7jyp wrote
The Space Force is new. As is the sabre rattling "battles of attrition" and proliferation and coyly hinting about our shiny new space weapons.
All that stuff is new. Starlink is new. And the military competitive advantage it provides just makes the potential escalation to a hot war in space all the more likely. So that's also new.
And we were already the biggest dog on the block with the strongest military on the planet by a huge margin. And the destabilization caused by all that sabre rattling when we were already top dog is what makes the US the baddie in space right now.
And you don't need a Kessler is what I keep saying. But you keep bringing it up for some reason possibly because you don't want to face the implications of debris fields with century long decay periods. That would probably be a loss if you were to admit that.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyza83d wrote
We made the space force to better organize and operate our space assets, just as we made the air force to better organize and operate our air assets. You also ignored Russia having a space branch already, again. All of the tech you are going on about isn't new. The scale of it is but its all stuff we were already doing.
>And we were already the biggest dog on the block with the strongest military on the planet by a huge margin. And the destabilization caused by all that sabre rattling when we were already top dog is what makes the US the baddie in space right now
So how the fuck does the biggest dog on the block doing things to keep itself the biggest dog on the block destabilize things? That makes no logical sense. The US saber rattles the least of all the big nations, what happens is the giant is easier to see when it does anything.
Either you are just really misinformed, have a really misguided sense of right and wrong, or are a troll.
>And you don't need a Kessler is what I keep saying. But you keep bringing it up
I don't, you do
>but it's also a bit of a recipe for disaster and the subsequent losing of LEO for everyone.
Kessler
>And a simple debris cascade is enough to lock us out due to debris for as long as it takes the debris to deorbit which could be decades or centuries.
Kessler
>And, you can say a debris cascade isn't worth considering. But it actually is. A debris cascade is a big deal and it will lock us out of space for however long.
Kessler
Kessler syndrome is a debris cascade you moron
simcoder t1_iyzagem wrote
I guess we have to do this one thing at a time.
The point is you don't need a Kessler. That's the worst case scenario. An ordinary space war generating debris fields with century long decay times is good enough. Or a midling debris cascade that doesn't go full Kessler.
What part of that aren't you getting????
Doggydog123579 t1_iyzbu8p wrote
LEO can't have century long debris fields, and its where all these mega constellations exist, so other orbits don't really matter. furthermore all of the current ASAT weapons can't hit higher then high LEO anyways, so any other area is irrelevant. And a midling debris cascade is still Kessler syndrome. Kessler syndrome is a spectrum. It just means you have a debris cascade that is negatively effecting satellite lifespans. That can be anywhere from removing weeks to removing us from the satellites operating life. Making it impossible to use them was never a prerequisite for it to be Kessler syndrome.
simcoder t1_iyzdkow wrote
Well you're wrong on a number of points there. Let me try to explain a couple of them to you.
LEO very much does contain century long decay orbits. LEO extends out to 1000 miles or so. Technically, at the extreme, that could go all the way to thousand year decay. Maybe more.
I think most of the military stuff is a bit lower than that. But, if you're right and ASAT weapons are limited to lower LEO orbits that seems like that would be a pretty decent incentive to put your important stuff up there out of range of the easy ASAT kill.
Kessler is the long term debris cascade that runs away on itself...over the long term. If your theory that the debris clears in a few years and is nothing to worry about, then, it's not Kessler. Because it's over in just a few years and doesn't run away on itself. It's just a middling debris cascade that creates a little bit more debris and then decays.
The point being that you can have a debris cascade that eventually peters out. Technically, if some debris hits just one other satellite creating more debris that would qualify as a "debris cascade (of 1)".
And a debris cascade that eventually peters out is by definition NOT KESSLER. All debris probably contributes in some way to the long term runaway Kessler. But not all debris cascades are Kessler.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyzfvp5 wrote
>LEO very much does contain century long decay orbits. LEO extends out to 1000 miles or so. Technically, at the extreme, that could go all the way to thousand year decay. Maybe more.
The vast majority of satellites are sub 600km, so while true its effectively irrelevant.
>I think most of the military stuff is a bit lower than that. But, if you're right and ASAT weapons are limited to lower LEO orbits that seems like that would be a pretty decent incentive to put your important stuff up there out of range of the easy ASAT kill.
Good plan, except those satellites don't work at the higher altitudes.
>Kessler is the long term debris cascade that runs away on itself...over the long term. If your theory that the debris clears in a few years and is nothing to worry about, then, it's not Kessler. Because it's over in just a few years and doesn't run away on itself. It's just a middling debris cascade that creates a little bit more debris and then decays.
>The point being that you can have a debris cascade that eventually peters out. Technically, if some debris hits just one other satellite creating more debris that would qualify as a "debris cascade (of 1)".
>And a debris cascade that eventually peters out is by definition NOT KESSLER. All debris probably contributes in some way to the long term runaway Kessler. But not all debris cascades are Kessler.
You are so focused on the theory of it you are missing the forest for the trees. Kessler syndrome was based in the idea of a debris belt forming in orbit from a chain reaction of debris hitting satellites and other debris. It doesn't need to be growing or sustaining itself to still be Kessler Syndrome, it just needs to exist. VLEO experiencing such will still be clear within 5 years do to the low altitude. But that is still Kessler syndrome as a cascade generated a debris ring.
Or in simpler terms you have it backwords. ALL debris cascades are Kessler Syndrome, But Kessler syndrome can include other things
To quote the original source
As the number of artifical satellites in earth orbit increases, the probability of collisions between satellites increases. Satellite collisions would produce orbiting fragments, each of which would increase the probability of future collisions, leading to the growth of a belt of debris around the earth. This debris flux in such an earth orbiting belt could exceed the natural meteorite flux, affecting future spacecraft design.
Oh look, nothing about it making space unusable or being permanent.
simcoder t1_iyzg6if wrote
Not all debris cascades runaway. To be Kessler, they need to runaway. Your pet theory of decay in a couple years and everything's fine is not Kessler. No matter how much you try to shoehorn it in there. I'm kind of shocked you're still trying while so obviously being wrong.
And I just want to make sure we're clear that you can have decade or century long decay times in LEO. And that we don't know if the military has stuff higher than VLEO. Particularly, if you are correct and going higher gives you some immunity to cheap ASATs.
Are we clear on that?
Doggydog123579 t1_iyzhuum wrote
You just focused on theory instead of reality again. I quoted Kessler fucking paper that says nothing of the sort
Then you ignored the whole location of satellites.
simcoder t1_iyzi8q2 wrote
By your theory though, everything is Kessler including the wrench that they dropped off the Space Shuttle 30 years ago. It's kind of a ridiculously broad take.
And I didn't ignore anything. You just tried to dodge the issue that we don't know the altitude of every military satellite.
The reality is that a space war could very well lead to long duration debris fields that will impact space operations for the duration. And, as I mentioned earlier, the first space war could change the way everyone operates in space for the foreseeable future. Particularly given how much cheaper it is to deny space than it is to "defend" it.
Right now it's an "everyone's-land". After the first space war, it could turn into a no-mans-land. And to the extent the US escalation in space plays a part in that potential future, that makes the US the baddie in space right now.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyzijh5 wrote
>As the number of artifical satellites in earth orbit increases, the probability of collisions between satellites increases. Satellite collisions would produce orbiting fragments, each of which would increase the probability of future collisions, leading to the growth of a belt of debris around the earth. This debris flux in such an earth orbiting belt could exceed the natural meteorite flux, affecting future spacecraft design.
A wrench dropped by the shuttle does add to Kessler.
>And I didn't ignore anything. You just tried to dodge the issue that we don't know the altitude of every military satellite.
We actually do know the orbit of every military satellite, because you can't hide that from a telescope. Pick any satellite and I will tell you its exact orbit. The vast majority are under 600km because of their missions. Which puts them in range of ASAT.
simcoder t1_iyzj1l5 wrote
I notice you said the vast majority but you didn't say all.
Do you know the altitude of every single military asset in space? Is that listed somewhere that we could both look?
And the wrench is debris. You're right about that but still wrong about Kessler.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyzjev4 wrote
Yes vast majority. Which means hitting them degrades capabilites the most.
I just told you we know all the altitudes and eccentricities of every assest in space. You can't hide things in space.
https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_worldmap.php
Cosidering I'm using the original paper as a source, no, I'm not wrong about Kessler. Lets see your source for how Kessler works.
simcoder t1_iyzk087 wrote
How about GPS? Those can be pretty high. Seems like that might be something that the bad guys might have in their targets.
Speaking of bad guys, what if the bad guys have military stuff that's in orbits that don't decay for decades or centuries?
You're right that debris is debris. But the wrench they dropped off the Shuttle and has subsequently decayed is not Kessler Syndrome. I know you really want it to be but it's not. It's just debris.
Doggydog123579 t1_iyzx5c9 wrote
GPS is too high for ASAT, and isn't the majority of satellites.
>You're right that debris is debris. But the wrench they dropped off the Shuttle and has subsequently decayed is not Kessler Syndrome. I know you really want it to be but it's not. It's just debris.
Why would it not count for Kessler syndrome?
Arakui2 t1_iz07mka wrote
Just ignore this fucking dude, he's describing the exact thing kessler is and then saying it isn't kessler. I'm convinced he isn't even reading his own arguments back
Doggydog123579 t1_iz08ma5 wrote
I'm too good of a person and try to assume the person I'm arguing with are stupid but arguing in good faith. But yeah he is definitely a troll
simcoder t1_iyzzkpz wrote
Why is ASAT the sole arbiter of potential debris? Are you now also saying you know about every single weapon system the US has in its arsenal?
Somehow given your position on wrenches == Kessler Syndrome, I'm not really sure I trust your space expertise.
lol
[deleted] t1_iz04z9t wrote
[removed]
Arakui2 t1_iz078y5 wrote
"A run of the mill space war or minot debris cascade will do just fine" That is kessler, you are describing kessler.
simcoder t1_iz07pra wrote
How so?
Arakui2 t1_iz08h6i wrote
Kessler syndrome, by definition, is a debris cascade in LEO. When you describe a "minor debris cascade" you are therefore, by definition, describing kessler syndrome.
simcoder t1_iz08pom wrote
So no runaway chain reaction required for your version of Kessler? What if a wrench fell of the Space Shuttle, would that qualify as Kessler Syndrome?
Arakui2 t1_iz08tq7 wrote
Any space debris in LEO adds to kessler syndrome, yes.
simcoder t1_iz08yl4 wrote
Is a wrench falling off the Space Shuttle Kessler Syndrome?
Arakui2 t1_iz0983m wrote
Kessler syndrome is a cumulative effect. Not a single quantifiable object. To imply you can measure or quantify kessler is ridiculous. It is purely theoretical, and an outdated theoretical framework at that.
simcoder t1_iz09cfn wrote
It's a simple question. Yes or no. Would a wrench falling off the space shuttle qualify as Kessler Syndrome?
Arakui2 t1_iz09r4x wrote
1). No, it is not a simple question. These are advanced theoretical orbital mechanics, not primary school math equations.
2). Since the wrench is space debris, it would add to the cumulative effect of kessler syndrome. It is not kessler syndrome by itself because the argument you are presenting is a misreading and misrepresentation of what kessler syndrome is. Stop trying to quantify theoretical cumulatives, it makes you look stupid.
simcoder t1_iz0ac2j wrote
So it's not Kessler Syndrome. I agree. lol
The crazy thing is that whether or not a particular debris field or cascade qualifies as Kessler Syndrome really doesn't affect my core argument. If anything a space war leading to a runaway chain reaction helps solidify my argument.
[deleted] t1_iz0azxd wrote
[removed]
simcoder t1_iz0fgpd wrote
For some reason I can't reply to your last reply but here's my response anyway :P
My point with the whole "Kessler or no" debate was that you don't need a full on Kessler to have a dramatic impact on LEO and beyond.
If you really must die on the hill of "it's all Kessler", that's fine. A full on Kessler makes my point even more dramatically. If you think all space debris can be construed as Kessler, that's great. I'm happy for you. I disagree but it's mostly irrelevant to my main argument.
Arakui2 t1_iz0gyds wrote
While you are correct in your statement that you don't need a full kessler to affect LEO, you are vastly overestimating the amount of debris that would be needed to create a kessler of significant enough size to stifle spaceflight on any level. The volume of upper LEO is so vast that there simply aren't enough satellites there to create a debris field big enough in the first place, not even mentioning how difficult it would be to create the debris initially, considering pracitcal studies conducted by the US military have shown that current ASATs are impractical at best, entirely useless at worst.
simcoder t1_iz0idpk wrote
Let's say Elon deploys his dream of a 30k constellation and that thing runaway chain reacts with each other.
Very often, you'll hear from the fanbase that could happen but it wouldn't be a big deal because it will all deorbit in 5 years.
But it actually would be a very big deal for everyone involved in space. Anything between the upper shells and the ground would likely be very negatively affected up to and including getting destroyed.
A lot of people would likely end up being very very unhappy that the hubris of a 30k constellation caused the world to have to put their space ambitions on hold for 5 years and sacrifice whatever got in the way of the carnage.
What you're doing here is very similar.
A space war generating a bunch of debris would be very bad for space business and could cause either a partial or complete shutdown of space while everything clears out. Any debris higher than VLEO would likely have knock-on effects for years or decades down the road.
And the very fact we had the first space war resulting in a bunch of space assets getting blown up would likely have a significant cooling of people's space ambitions in general. And could result in earth orbit becoming a military no man's land if the military tensions continue.
Arakui2 t1_iz0k2ud wrote
Ugh. Not this shit again. I'll go through it real quick because I can't be bothered arguing with people who ignore common sense specifically when it come to starlink.
1- Starlink satellites cannot and will not collide. Spacex keeps them at different altitudes and monitors them constantly, with redirections taking place if they are on course for a collision. Spacex will never allow a collision to occur as it hurts them more than anyone else.
2- Any debris from a starlink collision will burn up in the upper atmosphere within 90 days, it is physically impossible for it to stay in orbit. The 5 year number is with constant firing of their ion engines, not without them.
3- I have explained this time and time again. There is not enough potential debris his high LEO to stifle spaceflight. LEO has more than enough but it will all burn up within a small time frame.
4- If you're going so be this whataboutist over this, war in space would be a war on the ground too. It would go nuclear, and humanity would be wiped out. Therefore, there is not point in even considering a kessler beyond that.
simcoder t1_iz0lgsc wrote
I was just quoting the number the original Kessler guy used.
"We are talking at most 5 years for all the debris to clear out, at which point LEO is open again."
lol
​
I think the point still stands though. You're basically saying a space war would be no big deal because space is big and Starlink is low.
But I think that's horrifically oversimplifying things. You yourself mentioned the elephant in the room, ie nuclear war. All of this plays into that. And further calls into question the aggressive militarization of space given it could lead to that.
It's like you guys are making my argument for me. :P
Arakui2 t1_iz0lyuz wrote
You miss that he was talking about everything in LEO, yet you specifically mentioned starlink which is far less susceptible to the point of it being impossible to create a kessler.
And yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Space is big, starlink can't create a kessler, and a space war will never happen just like a nuclear war will never happen. You aren't even arguing anything anymore, so it isn't possible for me to argue for you lmao
simcoder t1_iz0mkdf wrote
A nuclear will never happen? lol
I didn't realize that you were so naive...
And a space war is almost certain to happen eventually. Same with a nuclear war. That's what humans do. It's a shame but that's reality for you.
To ignore that sad reality of humanity just makes it that much more likely when go around aggressively militarizing space.
wowsosquare t1_iyxe03z wrote
It's all fun and games till the ASATs start flying.
[deleted] t1_iywj57s wrote
[removed]
Decronym t1_iyyibf3 wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ASAT|Anti-Satellite weapon| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |SSO|Sun-Synchronous Orbit| |USAF|United States Air Force| |VLEO|V-band constellation in LEO| | |Very Low Earth Orbit|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation| |perigee|Lowest point in an elliptical orbit around the Earth (when the orbiter is fastest)|
^(7 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 33 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8390 for this sub, first seen 5th Dec 2022, 03:07])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
[deleted] t1_izjrdf3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0c4zig wrote
[removed]
ten-million t1_iyxoj73 wrote
TLDR: more money for space force!
and what’s with those retro futurist fascist uniforms?
Corbulo2526 OP t1_iyxto29 wrote
>and what’s with those retro futurist fascist uniforms?
Just because a uniform is dark blue, military, and has a high collar doesn't make it fascist.
little-evil77 t1_iyxv4h3 wrote
Is everything fascist now or do people not know what the word means?
ten-million t1_iyy0z9n wrote
The aesthetics of fascism is pretty common knowledge. Susan Sontag wrote about it a long time ago.
[deleted] t1_iyy805t wrote
[removed]
rushmc1 t1_iywshz9 wrote
How does this man not feel humiliated to be referred to as "U.S. Space Force chief"?
NoTaRo8oT t1_iywu1o2 wrote
Idk, because he doesn't live in a sitcom?
Ainulind t1_iyxl5no wrote
Same way you can use reddit and not feel a lick of shame.
CygnusX-1-2112b t1_iywzyne wrote
Because every time he hears it it reminds him of his pension and all the post-retirement private sector contracts he's guaranteed.
Corbulo2526 OP t1_iyxjusp wrote
Because space is cool?
RelevantUsernameUser t1_iyy9eux wrote
Signing off on the Space Force was the only decent thing TFG did in my opinion.
simcoder t1_iyyacvd wrote
What if, after the first space war, LEO becomes a no-mans-land? Will it have been a good idea then?
RelevantUsernameUser t1_iyyco5a wrote
I think one of their key purposes is learning to deal with space junk.
simcoder t1_iyyctw9 wrote
I think that's more of a "branding" thing :(
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/pentagon-posed-to-unveil-classified-space-weapon/
Corntillas t1_iywhxt3 wrote
“”Whether it’s satellite-based communications, imagery, early warning of missile launches, or positioning navigation and timing, “the capability that space offers has demonstrated its value so much so that both sides are engaged in trying to counter those capabilities and deny those advantages to the opponent,” he said.””
Keeping the orbital fuel rod launcher tucked up the sleeve. Smart.