drop_database_run

drop_database_run t1_jd4zciz wrote

That space junk will eventually eliminate itself, this does eliminate space junk faster as in my example above it does mitigate the total amount of stuff in orbit. It isn't wrong, it's just not right in the way you were hoping. Short of making a space garbage truck this is the way forward

1

drop_database_run t1_jd0r1zh wrote

They're testing the tech to reduce space junk, if it works cube says (generally considered disposable) won't spend 30 years in orbit. Yes it will be space junk, but it is a test that will mitigate space junk in the future.

Ex. Sat A has a life expectancy of three years, it will be in orbit for 25-30 years. Sat B also has a life expectancy of three years but will only be in orbit for 5 years.

If these satellites are replaced on schedule, there will be 10 Model A in orbit with one functioning verse 2 (maybe 3) model B in orbit at any given point over the same time frame

9

drop_database_run t1_j8gzkl6 wrote

I think that is his point, you can be a lazy bum if you want, but if we all become lazy bums that rot in our sheets we will go extinct. So where is the balance point? Where do we put the line that maintains society? Murder bad. But we can clone someone so it's fine, just a lengthy respawn. But they begin killing people faster than we can clone them, now is this where we draw the line? Or despite the cloning/respawning do we continue to outlaw murder?

Not arguing for its legalization, I just feel like it's an argument that proves a point

−15

drop_database_run t1_j2csxjz wrote

>Yet we don't really interfere because it doesn't actually inflict us in any way.

The cost of intervening outweighs any benefit we would receive. Now should some other factor arise requiring intervening in a nation such as China, were going to get what we pay for

1