[HN Gopher] Ad Astra: The coming battle over space
___________________________________________________________________
Ad Astra: The coming battle over space
Author : Hooke
Score : 109 points
Date : 2021-10-30 01:38 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (harpers.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (harpers.org)
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Spend less money on spy satellites and more on spies. I wonder
| how many agents the CIA are running in China?
| fuckcensorship wrote:
| Not as many as the CIA might like [1].
|
| [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-
| spie...
| pezzana wrote:
| The main takeaway from this article is that the militarization of
| space if moving _fast_. There is this document called the Outer
| Space Treaty that was written at the dawn of the Space Age. It
| has never been updated, and was written for a world divided into
| two Cold War spheres of influence.
|
| The world today looks nothing like the world of the 1960s. It
| looks a lot more like the world of the early 1910s and 1930s.
| Multiple countries vie for advantage.
|
| > Since 2015, Russia, China, India, Iran, Israel, France, and
| North Korea have all established military space programs. China's
| and Russia's space commands are close on the heels of the United
| States, and according to the Secure World Foundation, the United
| States has idled certain of its offensive-technology programs
| while China and Russia actively test the same capabilities. ...
|
| There's a theory of what causes war among major powers that goes
| like this. Wars result when one side miscalculates how the other
| side will respond. You can see elements of this in WWI. Certainly
| the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor fits the bill. And it almost
| did us in during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
|
| Combine multiple players jockeying for position, a close
| connection between space and nuclear weapon command and control,
| and a new domain that blunts the advantages of incumbants, and
| you get a fertile breeding ground for crisis.
|
| Then there's the "use it or lose it" angle to consider and the
| fact the US has the most to lose in all of this:
|
| > All military assets are surrounded by a "use it or lose it"
| ethos, says Joan Johnson-Freese, the author of Space Warfare in
| the 21st Century and a professor of national security affairs at
| the U.S. Naval War College. Once conflict begins, all holdings
| are seen to be at risk: you need to fire that missile before it's
| taken out. "The military is taught to assume the worst, and to
| react to it," she told me. "Because space assets are so far away,
| and there is a high potential to not be sure what is happening,
| high risk and threat must be assumed." This is commonly referred
| to as "the tyranny of distance." When the rules are not plain,
| whether in peacetime or war, the situation is "exponentially"
| more dangerous. ...
| [deleted]
| tudorw wrote:
| Do hypersonic weapons give a new first strike capability and is
| this the end of the M.A.D. policy, do we actually need a new
| race, post-globalisation it looks like authoritarianism, closed
| borders and increased surveillance might be the focus, in which
| case the military industrial complex still has a good fit, just
| a new enemy, a constant war against people as it were.
| nabla9 wrote:
| No. Normal ICBMs are already hypersonic weapons.
|
| Talking about "hypersonic weapons" is talking about gliding
| or maneuvering hypersonic warheads or cruise missiles. (btw.
| Space Shuttle was hypersonic glider)
|
| China and Russia are developing hypersonic gliders to
| maintain their capability and create more variance. The US
| ballistic missile defense can't protect the US from Russia or
| China (nor it is intended to do), but it requires some
| adjustments. More ICBM's, warheads throw weight, and counter-
| countermeasures and different trajectories.
|
| For example, the fractional orbital bombardment that China
| tested is an old concept. Together with a gliding warhead, it
| means that China can maintain deterrence with fewer missiles.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Is that another Arms Control Wonk listener I spy?
| nabla9 wrote:
| Naturally.
| baybal2 wrote:
| The reliable suprise first strike option been there for 30
| years: slow, low flying cruise missile taking count command
| infrastructure.
| tudorw wrote:
| As an aside, anyone know if Raytheon takes bitcoin?
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Well, if we've been more or less operating under a peace treaty
| for 50 odd years but technology and military technology
| "planning" programs have been pursued that entire time, well...
|
| Yeah, if the gloves come off and all the "planning" projects
| are "actualized", things are going to change very quickly.
|
| Orbit isn't like the ground though. You can see that offense is
| relatively straightforward (kinetic weapons and lasers),
| defense is practically impossible (hard to stop lasers and
| kinetic weapons), and the collateral damage is akin to nuclear
| fallout: space junk will persist for long after the seconds-
| long battle lasts.
|
| I think what would be necessary is some sort of perverse royal
| kidnapping: you'd need high-level leaders of space factions
| have family and friends in all the habitats to dissuade
| military action.
|
| The challenge to settle space is that civilian habitats are
| extremely vulnerable to extremely basic attacks, and we're
| simply too warlike.
|
| But if we don't even get to the point of space habitats, and a
| long orbital war poisons near-space with junk, we may have
| imprisoned ourselves. It almost makes the need to get to mars
| and the moon even more paramount in the relatively brief
| armistice in space.
| vagrantJin wrote:
| > China and Russia actively test the same capabilities.
|
| > When the rules are not plain, whether in peacetime or war,
| the situation is "exponentially" more dangerous
|
| That's a good thing. No doubt the US would win most wars but
| I'd be happier if countries with no bone in the fight could
| protect themselves from accidental annihilation. Development of
| Anti-weapons to disarm and disable potential space advantages
| up to an including complete destruction of GPS, Research sats
| (yes, including Telescopes) and even the ISS- wholesale.
| User23 wrote:
| It's quite likely that the US would lose to a regional power
| like Russia or China[1] inside that power's sphere of
| influence.
|
| My personal hunch is that a Dune like destroy the spice
| gambit is Taiwan's best bet to hold off military annexation.
| They could rig their semiconductor fabs and the other things
| the CCP wants with thermite or something similar and make it
| known that if the mainland invades it all goes up in smoke.
|
| [1] https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2021/07/it-failed-
| miserabl...
| saiya-jin wrote:
| i would be very surprised if its not already done so in
| some way.
|
| I would also expect all major powers having very detailed
| intel of where to strike to cripple it all with some staff
| working there.
|
| It was super important long before covid highlighted its
| importance for whole global economy, now even average Joe
| heard about 'em chips shortage.
| khuey wrote:
| You don't need to rig it to blow. Just fire a couple cruise
| missiles and a ten billion dollar foundry will be
| unsalvageable rubble.
| Tomte wrote:
| Then China invades, the fabs go up in smoke, and China is
| suddenly in a much better position to dominate in that
| field, too.
|
| On a much lower level, sure, but now they are really
| competitive.
| User23 wrote:
| China is a very long way away from being able to
| replicate ASML's lithography machines. Those fabs can't
| be replaced without European technology and the US would
| almost certainly manage to get an embargo through as a
| response to an invasion.
| cma wrote:
| The US already has an embargo on ASML EUV tech to China,
| because the US funded it all in the late 90s with DARPA
| and an industry consortium (EUV LLC.).
| dillondoyle wrote:
| +10. Xi has shown the past couple years he has no problem
| hurting profit now - sometimes dramatically - for more
| power and control in the future.
| ericmay wrote:
| I think this [1] RAND Corporation assessment is
| interesting. Saying just "X will lose" is a little bit too
| simple. You can download the PDF for free. I read the
| entire thing, quite interesting.
|
| [1]https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html
| phreeza wrote:
| > rig their semiconductor fabs and the other things the CCP
| wants with thermite
|
| You can't rig national pride with thermite. Western Germany
| wanted to reunite with eastern Germany not for any economic
| reasons but because of a sense of national unity.
| garmaine wrote:
| Taiwan does NOT want to "reunite" with the mainland.
| phreeza wrote:
| Yes of course, sorry if that came across wrong. Just
| wanted to give an example of one country absorbing
| another for non-monetary reasons.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Trivia: "Per ardua ad astra" (through hardships to the stars) is
| the motto of The Royal Air Force (first independent air force).
|
| But when it was coined, I don't think they were concerned about
| satellites being blown up.
| [deleted]
| natded wrote:
| Elon already won this for the US. Excluding China stealing the
| Starpship technology so they can match the lowered cost per
| tonnage, there are no competitors.
|
| https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2021/10/28/starship-is-st...
| rkk3 wrote:
| How is that at all relevant to the asymmetric vulnerabilities
| the US faces in LEO & GEO, which is the focus of the article?
| wcoenen wrote:
| Starship would allow the US to quickly and cheaply replace
| any lost infrastructure in space, therefore that
| vulnerability would be mitigated. (I'm not sure this would be
| an advantage for long though. Once a working cheap launch
| system has been demonstrated, it will soon be copied.)
| dylan604 wrote:
| Just because you have launch capability doesn't mean you
| have the payload to utilize that.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Starlink, which can be used for both communication and
| geolocation (and some observation), does, though. I think
| people don't understand the scale that Starlink operates
| at. SpaceX is planning to ramp up Starlink manufacturing
| capacity for STARSHIP, too. Falcon 9 does 40 200kg
| satellites at once. And plans to operate them eventually
| at below 400km, which makes them resistant to debris.
| wcoenen wrote:
| If launches are expensive (e.g. 400M USD for a Delta IV
| Heavy launch) then you have to engineer the payload to
| make it worth that launch cost. It needs to be super
| reliable and last a long time, it needs to provide a lot
| of value, and you may get only one shot to get it right.
| There's not going to be a backup James Webb telescope if
| there's a glitch with the first one.
|
| If launches are cheap (e.g. a few million USD targeted by
| Starship), you can use more off the shelf hardware and
| iterate to see what works. Replacing satellites is not
| such a big deal.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| Are there actually asymmetric vulnerabilities in space?
|
| I also don't think that's the focus of the article and
| doesn't pertain to space. The article gives lots of examples
| of new competition from china & russia, but explicitly says
| for example that "the United States has idled certain of its
| offensive-technology programs while China and Russia actively
| test the same capabilities" which implies parity if not
| advantage.
|
| To me that asymmetric quote from Oriana Skylar Mastro seems
| to more reference what I do genuinely find scary: the US
| military's heavy heavy reliance on technology and tech
| controlled via space.
|
| can any of our planes even fly without computers? I assume
| all major powers can hack basically anything.
|
| I would hope the smarter than me military advisors have
| thought that through...
|
| "China attacked U.S. satellites operated by the U.S.
| Geological Survey and NASA. In the latter case, they gained
| control of the craft, but stopped short of issuing it
| commands"
|
| "Among the spacefaring nations, the United States is by far
| the most exposed"
|
| "I think it's no-holds-barred. Because the U.S. has the most
| to lose."
|
| Just by growing from behind technologically adversaries might
| have an advantage in they have stuff that works without
| computers & satellites.
|
| Though I would personally bet we might still have a small
| asymmetric advantage in space defense and offense.
|
| we obviously have an advantage in rapid deployment. Have been
| flying a mini shuttle for over 10 years. Have SpaceX. Seems
| wise to me to have extra satellites lying underground for
| rapid deployment. And hopefully we have more stuff that isn't
| trackable - it seems some of the shuttle stuff we know about
| is at least hard to track by amateurs.
| brandmeyer wrote:
| Reproduction does not imply theft. National pride, sufficient
| resources, and prioritization are sufficient to replicate the
| technology.
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.md/uEHuP
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| From 3 years ago: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-
| zone/22941/russia-has-four-...
|
| Russia Has Four Potential "Killer Satellites" In Orbit, At Least
| That We Know About
|
| > The problem is that any satellite that can maneuver itself very
| close to another one, and may have small arms or probes to
| physically interact with its target, is inherently capable of
| being a weapon. Any such repair system could easily smash
| sensitive optics and other components, or simply slam into the
| target, acting as a kinetic weapon
|
| The future of space warfare, as it's currently understood, will
| involve:
|
| 1- Satellites attacking other satellites with: 1a- robotic arms
| 1b- small projectiles 1c- jamming device 1d- lasers
|
| 2- missiles fired from the atmosphere
|
| 3- jamming stations on the ground
| (https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/space-force-first-...)
|
| More generally, space isn't safe for blue team anymore. Russia
| and China have aggressive ambitions to be able to dominate space
| and aren't restrained by any code of ethics, something China is
| also doing in artificial intelligence research (not bothering
| with "frameworks" and "guiding principles for responsible AI").
|
| Most experts agree that space will become another area of
| strategic competition where the major powers deter each other
| with mutual destruction doctrines, because the loss of global
| satellite communications, weather satellites and positioning
| systems, and the potential creation of millions of orbital debris
| that would result from a confrontation would be too dire to
| credibly contemplate.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > More generally, space isn't safe for blue team anymore.
|
| SpaceX bringing massive capabilities of orbital launch makes
| blue team stronger than ever. There's no competition anymore.
| Retric wrote:
| The deltaV requirements for matching orbits with another
| satellite are seriously prohibitive. It's vastly easier to
| simply launch a projectile on a collision course. Further, it's
| even easier to launch up and into the path of a satellite than
| reach orbit. Especially if you're launching from an aircraft in
| a large parabolic arch.
|
| Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT
|
| Critically launching from aircraft to orbit is not that
| helpful, but if you don't need to orbit it makes a huge
| difference.
| stemc43 wrote:
| > and aren't restrained by any code of ethics
|
| give ... me ... a break. are you seriously implying US (aka
| blue team) are good guys and have some higher standards?
| knownjorbist wrote:
| If you actually examine the war doctrine of the US, or
| consider that the US and its allies by and large provide for
| the stability of world trade through tumultuous regions, yes.
| Only if you've been engrossed in Russian or Chinese state
| media would you think otherwise.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Especially funny in this context as recent efforts to created
| a code of conduct for space have largely been rejected by the
| US in favour of the unstructured status quo.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > Russia and China have aggressive ambitions to be able to
| dominate space and aren't restrained by any code of ethics,
| something China is also doing in artificial intelligence
| research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding
| principles for responsible AI").
|
| Are you implying that the US military has a code of ethics it
| follows more than Russia or China? I would advise you to read
| up on the recent history of latin America and the Middle East
| if you believe such fantasies.
| knownjorbist wrote:
| Speak to anyone involved on the ground in Iraq or
| Afghanistan. Strikes on valid targets were routinely
| frustrated by the chain of command worried about collateral
| damage. That's not to say there are examples that where it
| happened anyways(you'll link me the Kunduz hospital airstrike
| as an example).
|
| Contrast with the USSR's occupation of Afghanistan, or their
| more recent contributions to the Syrian Civil War. Collateral
| damage is _not_ a consideration when they decide to go
| kinetic. Barrel bombing civilians _is the point_.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Russia Has Four Potential "Killer Satellites" In Orbit, At
| Least That We Know About
|
| As opposed to the operational ASAT system that the United
| States operates?
|
| > space isn't safe for blue team anymore
|
| 'Blue Team' that's the good guys, right?
|
| Besides the fact that space is inherently unsafe, it is the
| United States that has taken the lead in the militarization of
| space. Heck the US Space Force even has a website:
| https://www.spaceforce.mil/ , I'd assume they have some actual
| capabilities as well.
|
| > something China is also doing in artificial intelligence
| research (not bothering with "frameworks" and "guiding
| principles for responsible AI")
|
| Which of course doesn't happen anywhere else.
|
| Really, I think your comment could use some balance. From the
| point of view of an inhabitant of a small nation that does not
| have its own space capability it sure looks like the United
| States is a very large part of the problem.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| It's one thing to push back on the central premise - 'We
| cannot trust Blue team', but entirely delusional to also not
| take a deeper look at the situation of our adversaries and
| what exactly are they upto. If anything is unbalanced, it's
| your comment.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| What, raising an objection without providing a full "both
| sides are bad" article is somehow something to be shamed
| about?
| azernik wrote:
| The establishment of "Space Force" is overblown as a story...
| but in ways that support your point.
|
| It's basically a rebranding of an existing organization
| called US Air Force Space Command, which controls all
| military orbital launches and most military satellites (I
| believe NRO is its own separate thing). They just wanted it
| to be less specifically tied to the Air Force, and for its
| chief to be on equal footing to a service chief.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| > The establishment of "Space Force" is overblown as a
| story
|
| In the immediate sense yes: Space Force was just taking
| existing departments and putting them in a separate
| organisation.
|
| But this has long term effects, cutting them free of the
| Air Force oversight means they are no longer bound to the
| Earth in a very concrete sense. It seems that while they
| were part of the Air Force, someone though it fun to put in
| their mandate that they should defend all US interests in
| space, which in particular means _everything NASA has sent
| out_.
|
| Now that they are an independent organisation, that what
| they develop their culture around. Space Force is already
| putting out material with a view on how to fight around
| _the moon_! There 's nothing much _on_ the moon of course,
| but still they are anxious to know how to put weapons there
| for when there might be.
|
| If given enough money, there's little question that Space
| Force would seek to achieve dominance over the Solar
| System.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And everything that is labeled 'defense' really should be
| labeled 'offense'.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Brilliant. That way we can never have any defense! It
| feels like you have an axe to grind.
| xwdv wrote:
| Personally I believe the US is still capable of being extremely
| unethical as well, we just have to find ways to cover it up. So
| really we're not at too much of a disadvantage.
| caseyf7 wrote:
| I'm becoming concerned about how much we are going to pollute
| space in the coming decade due to Starship. Continuous launches
| of huge payloads will increase the material in orbit
| dramatically. The issues astronomers currently have with Starlink
| will be the tip of the iceberg. Will we need UNESCO World
| Heritage Orbits to protect our views of space?
| HenryKissinger wrote:
| Some pollution is an inevitable consequence of economic
| development.
|
| It would be great if we could move our most polluting
| activities (factories, refineries) to the Moon or Mars.
| goodoldneon wrote:
| That'd be inconceivably far in the future. It'd need to be
| more economical to transport goods through space...
| abecedarius wrote:
| Two-way cargo transport through vacuum has zero net energy
| cost, just like a counterweighted elevator on Earth, only
| more so -- no vacuum here. With reasonable intelligence and
| infrastructure we should approach that limit.
|
| Design sketch from 1978, with numbers: https://frc.ri.cmu.e
| du/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/pap...
| goodoldneon wrote:
| There isn't energy cost between bodies, but there are
| huge energy costs getting into orbit, leaving orbit, and
| getting into the destination body's orbit
| abecedarius wrote:
| Factories, refineries, and raw materials don't need to be
| on planets. There are disadvantages to siting on planets
| besides the added transport costs.
|
| > getting into the destination body's orbit
|
| I said round-trip energy costs. The delta-v for arriving
| cargo to enter orbit equals the delta-v for departing
| cargo. Over a full cycle of sending equal payloads both
| ways, the net change of energy and momentum is zero. I
| linked to an analysis of one way to harness this. When
| the skyhook in the linked example boosts a payload from
| Venus-Earth Hohmann to Earth-Mars Hohmann, the skyhook's
| orbit gets perturbed; but it gets the opposite
| perturbation on the boost on the opposite traffic.
|
| (This is not the only non-rocket approach to free-space
| transport with potentially low marginal cost.)
| politician wrote:
| Heavy industry in space is a ludicrous idea for the next
| few centuries. We will need to significantly rework
| industrial processes to avoid the heat buildup currently
| offset by the planet. No one will be operating a foundry
| in space anytime soon.
|
| Niche applications like low-temperature ZBLAN
| manufacturing might make more sense.
| abecedarius wrote:
| I disagree about centuries because the rate of progress
| so far belonged to a regime of launch costs of thousands
| of dollars per kg or worse. (Though "centuries" is at
| least more realistic than "inconceivably far". People
| were conceiving it in the 1970s and earlier.)
| wcoenen wrote:
| > _move our most polluting activities (factories, refineries)
| to the Moon or Mars_
|
| The delta-v required to move objects between planets is
| measured in thousands of m/s (e.g. just getting to low earth
| orbit requires about 10000 m/s), and the fuel required goes
| up exponentially with delta-v.
|
| As Elon Musk put it: "If you had crack-cocaine on Mars, in
| prepackaged pallets, it still wouldn't make sense to
| transport it back here."
| rajup wrote:
| Maybe the same huge payloads will enable astronomers to go to
| space to do their studies for months at a time? Seems like a
| win if that does happen.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Continuous launches of huge payloads will increase the
| material in orbit exponentially.
|
| I don't follow how a linear process would lead to an
| exponential result, can you please explain?
| quadrifoliate wrote:
| I am not sure how the works out either, but Donald Kessler's
| paper [1] on the subject might help. Kessler syndrome [2] is
| named after him. The exponent seems to be controlled by the
| number of objects launched per year, i.e. the rate.
|
| ----------------------------------------
|
| [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20110515132446/http://webpage
| s.c...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'm aware of the Kessler syndrome but never made that
| particular connection, I always thought it came down to a
| feed forward mechanism that started with a single
| collision, but it makes good sense that the chances of such
| collisions go up as the number of launches increases.
|
| So effectively, roughly paraphrasing GP's comment is that
| _if_ the launch rate remains constant at its current
| historical high level (and it could easily go up further)
| and this leads to more objects in space (which is a safe
| assumption) then the moment of the triggering of the
| Kessler syndrome gets moved forward in time, would that be
| correct?
| randallsquared wrote:
| > _the triggering of the Kessler syndrome gets moved
| forward in time_
|
| If you have a number of events, like meetings, moving one
| forward is putting it first, or earlier. But if you have
| a single event, with no notional queue, wouldn't moving
| it to an earlier point in time be "moved backward in
| time"? :)
| whatshisface wrote:
| What about the rate of improvement in launch costs we are
| observing is linear?
| ekianjo wrote:
| There's no starship 2 with 10 times the size of Starship in
| the plans.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Objects in orbit/day = min(objects per launch * launches
| per pad per day * number of working pads, number of
| objects per day anyone is willing to pay for)
| lifeformed wrote:
| Debris breaking up could create many smaller objects.
| tomp wrote:
| Adding 1 to _n_ existing objects ( _n = > n + 1_) increases
| the risk super-exponentially ( _n_ new collisions possible).
| djenendik wrote:
| Are you referring to N choose 2 possible collisions?
| renewiltord wrote:
| If n new collisions are possible when adding a new object
| to a population of n, that means risk increases
| quadratically (far sub-exponential).
|
| I'm pretty easy to convince that the risk is sigmoid and
| the early part looks exponential. But this justification
| does not lead there.
| tomp wrote:
| Oops yeah, you're right, brain fart on my part.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Well, SpaceX is attempting a 1/10th cost reduction with
| starship. That's one way to exponentially increase rates,
| drop the cost dramatically so a far larger number of use
| cases become feasible.
|
| Then you might get space hooks, orbital cannons,
| asteroid/moon mining etc. It's kind of akin to Moore's "law"
| which really is an observation of continual investment,
| research, and production to enable larger and larger economic
| uses.
|
| Space has a near-infinite (relative to our experience) of
| "potential use cases": there's a lot of usable matter out
| there, boatloads of always-on solar energy without pesky
| clouds, atmospheres, or night-time, and of course a LOT of
| room, and no gravity.
|
| So if you get economic profit from launching things into
| space, and the cost of the launching gradually goes down,
| even linearly, the amount of use will be a multiple of the
| linear cost improvement.
|
| I guess Moore's law was what it was because what was being
| optimized was two-dimensional shrinking.
|
| Space in orbit is a bit of two dimensional (orbital planes)
| with stacking, but then in deep space it will be purely three
| dimensional expansion. That's pretty exponential as a driving
| force.
| noahtallen wrote:
| Certainly a concern to think about, but also consider how vast
| space actually is. The area around earth in space is very
| significantly larger than the area on earth itself. Think of
| just how far the moon is away and still orbiting earth. You
| basically have ($max_orbit_distance - $min orbit_distance) all
| the way around earth. That is so much larger than the area we
| can build on earth, which is just a relative handful meters
| above or below the crust. And we're not even close to utilizing
| most of earth's surface area! Beyond that, the amount of
| activity in space will definitely be minuscule compared to the
| activity on earth.
|
| Put together, I space pollution will basically be a rounding
| error in the grand scheme of things, at least for a very, very
| long time. And beyond that, space is empty, so we aren't even
| destroying anything to do stuff
| BurningFrog wrote:
| As civilization spreads to space, it will be visible.
|
| I'm glad we built cities over pristine nature. Hope we can do
| the same in space.
| lindseymysse wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
|
| There is a limit to how much we can pollute space.
|
| I personally think we're going to lose space for at least a
| 1000 years, along with every other disaster this century. It
| will be for some asinine, short sited reason, i.e., power or
| money.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That might not be a bad thing per-se. We are getting a bit
| addicted to our future selves bailing out our past selves
| from various fuckups, it might be nice to have a millenium of
| contemplation to deal with the fall out of previous messes so
| that we can learn how to be proper stewards of planet sized
| eco-systems. Once we manage that we are possibly ready to
| take off the training wheels.
| lindseymysse wrote:
| With the supply chain disruption we might lose digital
| technology, too. I say good riddance. We'll still have the
| mathematics we figured out (Graph Theory, Matrix Math, AI).
|
| Our food supply is still mostly human powered. Tractors
| will get better.
|
| We'll have to do something other than surveil people and
| shit-post on the internet to fill our time. Oh well.
| t-3 wrote:
| We'll just move to shit-talking on radio.
|
| Basic electrical knowledge is way too widespread for
| anything less than total apocalypse to push us more than
| 50-100 years back in tech-level.
|
| Schematics and parts to assemble simple TTL computers are
| sufficiently widespread that computing would definitely
| continue. Small-scale electrical infrastructure is very
| simple and easy to set up, especially with the large
| number of high-quality manual tools available almost
| everywhere.
| lindseymysse wrote:
| And that's fine by me. I think this computer everywhere
| stuff is more trouble than it's worth. It's like when we
| put radium on everything.
| iamstupidsimple wrote:
| People don't live long enough to plan for the future over
| such vast timescales.
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's either that or extinction at some point so even if
| people don't live long enough we have to start looking
| over the horizon of a single human life-span.
|
| BTW, the best argument for longevity research that I've
| come across to date is that if people lived for a
| thousand years suddenly there would be a lot of support
| for stabilization of our eco-systems.
| lindseymysse wrote:
| we're going to have to learn.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Now_Foundation
| inglor_cz wrote:
| The lower orbits are fairly resistant to this because of the
| residual atmospheric drag. Any piece of debris whose orbit is
| under 500 km will burn up in the atmosphere within 5-10 years
| or so. That is known as orbital decay.
|
| For something to stay up 1000 years, even a small object like
| a lost nut, it must orbit at least 900 km away from the
| Earth.
|
| https://www.spaceacademy.net.au/watch/debris/orblife.htm
| bserge wrote:
| Most satellites orbit at 1000+ km.
| lindseymysse wrote:
| And the moon is 384,400 km away. So, we've sent satellites
| and probes further than that.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| True, but my reasoning was that we cannot really "lose
| space" for 1000 years by Kessler syndrome alone. The
| lower orbits self-clean much faster than that.
|
| And Kessler syndrome, even if fully developed, will
| likely not prevent you from flying to other celestial
| bodies. Compared to an orbit, you only spend a very short
| time in the region cluttered by debris when leaving the
| Earth entirely.
| blakesley wrote:
| Oh, good, we'll only lose space for 5-10 years.
| golemotron wrote:
| > There is a limit to how much we can pollute space.
|
| Not really. The universe is about 93 billion light-years in
| size and won't ever be traversable in a finite amount of
| time.
|
| Your comment seems to indicate that you think of "space" as
| earth orbit. Starship is specifically about going beyond
| orbit.
|
| It's time to move beyond scarcity thinking.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| We have no permanent living habitats in space. ZERO. The
| ISS is where people live temporarily before returning to
| earth to recover from the effects of zero gravity.
|
| We are in a desperate race to expand to space vs destroy
| ourselves before we get there. If you think that race has
| been won while three nations have the power to end the
| human race at the press of a nuclear launch button, you're
| naive.
|
| The Great Filter has a gun pointed squarely at our head and
| is very slowly pulling the trigger.
| lindseymysse wrote:
| We have enough food for everyone. We should feed everyone.
| We have enough houses for everyone, we should house them.
|
| Space fantasies aren't part of avoiding scarcity thinking.
| Space fantasies are a distraction to getting everyone's
| needs met.
|
| https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/energy-slaves/
|
| Our current "post scarcity" world is built on shaky
| grounds. But it doesn't have to collapse.
| [deleted]
| wongarsu wrote:
| Having satellites is important to various industries and
| branches of government. As such, money and power will enable
| them to have satellites up there.
|
| Even if we let Kessler syndrome run unchecked to the point of
| no return where it destroys a large portion of satellites, we
| will either start serious clean-up of certain orbits to allow
| military observation and communication satellites to go up
| again, or we will develop better collision avoidance or self-
| defence systems.
| lindseymysse wrote:
| I find people's belief in Money's ability to solve problems
| hilarious. We've been patching over problem after problem
| and every bill is coming due. We need nitrogen. We started
| making it with hydro carbons. Now we have toxic algae
| blooms, AND now we're running out of fossil fuels to make
| nitrogen.
|
| We've written a check we aren't able to cash. The solution
| isn't to keep writing checks.
| wongarsu wrote:
| I'm not saying "let's ignore all problems and continue to
| party". Rather I'm saying "well funded people have a
| vested interest in solving this before it becomes
| critical. Our energy is better spent solving problems
| where that isn't the case"
| mdorazio wrote:
| If you think that Starship will massively increase objects in
| LEO due to lowered costs then you should also believe that more
| of those objects than before will be astronomical satellites.
| I.e the space industry pollutes the view from the ground at the
| same time it makes alternatives to that view much more viable.
| Personally, I'd much rather have the benefits of orbital
| industry.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| The telescopes work better in space anyway. The cost of
| dropping a telescope in orbit will drop, and they won't want
| to be near-earth anyway so they'll be in lesser valued
| orbital real estate.
| ekianjo wrote:
| > I'm becoming concerned about how much we are going to pollute
| space in the coming decade due to Starship
|
| You should be a little more concerned about the pollution on
| Earth.
| an9n wrote:
| Starship also offers the best potential for depolluting
| space...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-31 23:01 UTC)