Yes, however sample size matters. The odds of having a run of 5 launches without failures is better then 10. So if both have a perfect record, but one has only flown half as much, the one with the higher number of flights is statistically more reliable

Did you seriously just ask why Japan's conditions matter when talking about the US not accept Japan's conditions?

Ok, where in that does it say the US was willing to accept conditions other then keep the emperor? Because Downfall by Frank says nearly the exact opposite of you.

Japan's "Conditions" were No trials, no occupation, and keeping captured territory. In other words, letting Japan win.

how are you determining your p factor.

Put another way, How do you know they are similar enough that a sample size of 1-200 isnt enough to determine which is more reliable.

You dodged again. Im not asking about statistical probabilities. You said Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 are reliable enough we cant compare them without a thousand flights. How do you know that.

The problem appears to be you misreading what I meant, though it doesn't help i was hastily typing it out on my phone. I fully understand what you mean and never even actually said one rocket was more reliable. My original post was me pointing out he forgot a failure, and me then pointing out Falcon 9s perfect record if I arbitrarily specify Block 5.

The argument is happening because you haven't answered my question. If the rockets are reliable enough we need thousands of launches to get the required data set, how are you determining they are reliable enough to require said data set to compare?

I don't disagree, my issue was with his claim they are super reliable while also saying we don't have enough data to say they are statistically better. The Shuttle was supposed to be super reliable and look what happened to it.

Ok, let me start over. > They are so reliable that it's impossible

This part cant be proven without more flights. The Space Shuttle was supposed to be super reliable and had 2 failures in 135 flights, which is comparable to Ariane 5 or Falcon 9. However we know the shuttle wasnt actually reliable, but this was only learned after the fact. You cant argue reliablity with any credability unless you have a large enough data set, which we do not.

So, the only data we do have is the rockets flight record and any discoveries made during it. The current data supports the Falcon 9 and Ariane 5 being reliable, but its not currently enough to argue they actually are that reliable.

So, other then using what we already have, how are you supposed to compare launch vehicles reliability?

You can't claim they are reliable enough without actually launching them though. The shuttle managed near the same performance but it was not a reliable rocket.

So other then using the data we have, how are we supposed to compare them?

How are you supposed to compare reliability Other then comparing total missions to failures then?

Technically yes, as AMOS wasn't launching when everything exploded. Block 5 has had 0 failures out of over 100 launches, so its still better then Ariane 5

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

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?

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://www.n2yo.com/

https://www.orbtrack.org/

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

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

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

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.