[HN Gopher] When Earth Had Rings
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       When Earth Had Rings
        
       Author : rbanffy
       Score  : 99 points
       Date   : 2024-10-06 11:17 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (nautil.us)
 (TXT) w3m dump (nautil.us)
        
       | forgot-im-old wrote:
       | May see rings around Earth again.. it's the expected state that
       | space debris settles into after Kessler Syndrome.
        
         | chaosmanorism wrote:
         | Kessler syndrome is inevitable if Elon & Trump get their way,
         | https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2811927/trump-propos...
        
           | o_1 wrote:
           | lol
        
         | sandworm101 wrote:
         | There isnt nearly enough mass up there in all the foreseeable
         | sat constellations. They need enough collective mass to
         | overcome the extreem orbital inclinations/speeds we use for
         | sats. For a visible ring to form, we would have to send
         | billions of sats into high/slow orbits and then just forget
         | about them for millions of years. Even then, they would likely
         | form into mini moons first before those moons eventually broke
         | up into rings.
        
           | JKCalhoun wrote:
           | I had to laugh thinking that we (or some alien race) might
           | come across a ringed planet only to find its rings are made
           | of orbital space junk from a long-dead species that once
           | flourished on the planet.
        
             | McAtNite wrote:
             | This made me consider what sort of orbital archeology would
             | take place. I imagine it would be a gold mine for anyone
             | trying to study that civilization, and attempting to snatch
             | pieces out of orbit would be a huge focus.
        
             | jareklupinski wrote:
             | hopefully the sight discourages them from leaving their own
             | waste behind
             | 
             | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic
        
         | keyle wrote:
         | I was about to make a snarky comment about starlink. It's
         | getting harder to take a shot of the sky without one of those
         | pesky floaties.
        
           | delichon wrote:
           | Debris left in orbits below 600 km normally fall back to
           | Earth within several years. The Starlink constellation is at
           | around 350 km and below.
        
           | hggigg wrote:
           | Yeah this. I was 50 miles from civilisation in some mountains
           | in central Asia last year trying to do astrophotography and I
           | had to edit out the flying space trash after!
        
             | fooker wrote:
             | If you needed rescuing from there, or if a nearby village
             | was affected by a natural disaster, this flying space trash
             | is what's saving lives.
             | 
             | It makes sense for the vast majority of people to prefer
             | that against the slight inconvenience in editing out
             | satellite tracks faced by a tiny tiny community of ground
             | bases astrophotographers.
        
               | samegene321 wrote:
               | Low orbit satellites are unnecessary for emergency/comm.
               | Fewer, dimmer, satellites at higher orbits are actually
               | cheaper, but LEO constellations are now subsidized by the
               | military industrial complex (there is other value to be
               | low).
        
               | jjtheblunt wrote:
               | Aren't you overlooking constraints on transmit power for
               | mobile transmitters being better served my low earth
               | orbit than higher orbits?
        
               | Jtsummers wrote:
               | They're also overlooking the actual prices of GEO
               | satellites versus LEO. LEO is much cheaper than GEO,
               | there's a reason DOD and others are moving towards it and
               | it's not that it's a fad. GEO has a few specific benefits
               | but cost is not one of them.
        
               | Jtsummers wrote:
               | > Fewer, dimmer, satellites at higher orbits are actually
               | cheaper
               | 
               | GEO satellites are pretty pricey. Each Milstar satellite
               | cost $800 million, others in the same category are also
               | in the hundreds of millions, WGS-11 was over $600
               | million. Starlink V2 cost $800k per satellite.
               | 
               | And if you spent $800 million on a constellation of 1000
               | Starlinks, you'd have better coverage and bandwidth than
               | the entire 6 satellite Milstar constellation put together
               | for 1/6th the price.
               | 
               | Digging around for more recent prices, GEO is around
               | $100-300 million. That's still orders of magnitude more
               | per satellite than LEO. At the low end this means you
               | could get 100-400 Starlink V2s up there for the price of
               | one GEO. One GEO that only covers part of the globe,
               | versus 100-400 satellites providing global coverage.
        
               | fooker wrote:
               | It's crazy how unnecessary things can be trillion dollar
               | industries :)
        
               | seabass-labrax wrote:
               | Satellites have to pass through the Van Allen belts in
               | order to get into such higher orbits, which may expose
               | them to a not insignificant amount of radiation,
               | especially if the final orbit injection is not done in a
               | single impulse. Then, once they are comfortably out in
               | their higher orbit, they have to endure yet more
               | radiation without the aid of the Earth's magnetic field,
               | and require more cooling capacity due to spending much
               | less time in Earth's shadow than an LEO satellite.
        
               | hggigg wrote:
               | No it's really not. Please don't think suburban USA can
               | be extrapolated to the middle of bloody nowhere.
               | 
               | I might be able to get a message off, but how the hell do
               | you contact the emergency services and who the hell is
               | going to rescue me in a country with one rescue
               | helicopter that was out of action at the time?
               | 
               | In circumstances like that it's better to actually get
               | some mountain safety training, have some procedures and
               | other comms equipment in place. And importantly travel in
               | a group with the right equipment (including 4 legged
               | transport devices).
               | 
               | As for the astrophotography that was opportunistic.
        
               | cyberax wrote:
               | I'm subscribed to Garmin SAR that uses Iridium sats. When
               | you signal an emergency, they contact the local rescue
               | agencies.
               | 
               | And while they might not send a helicopter, a team if
               | rescuers on foot can still help in most cases.
        
               | hggigg wrote:
               | I have an InReach Mini 2. It is not necessarily useful.
               | It depends on where you are. Don't make any assumptions
               | about it until you've done research.
               | 
               | You'll find some places have only voluntary services and
               | the phone is likely only manned on week days on limited
               | hours. If you're lucky there might be a gmail address you
               | can hit. No joke.
        
               | cyberax wrote:
               | It might not be useful in Afghanistan or Somalia, but it
               | has a pretty wide coverage. Even if it's a niche product.
               | 
               | Once satellite communication is truly accessible to
               | everyone, I expect other companies to compete in this
               | area.
        
           | BurningFrog wrote:
           | They low orbit satellites are only visible while they're in
           | sunlight near sunrise/sunset.
        
             | forgot-im-old wrote:
             | Starlink is actually 550 km and Amazon's Kuiper at 620 km.
             | But the missile interceptors for the orbital _' American
             | Iron Dome'_* would be ~ 350 km.
             | 
             | * 2024 GOP platform #8:
             | https://ballotpedia.org/The_Republican_Party_Platform,_2024
             | which developed out of Elon Musk and Mike Griffin's
             | initiative for their founding of SpaceX:
             | https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
        
           | FooBarBizBazz wrote:
           | I read that those things' orbits degrade in like five years
           | tops. So at steady state, for a constellation of size N, you
           | need to launch N/5 of them each year, with the attendant fuel
           | burn. Seems like that kind of pollution is a bigger long term
           | worry than the short-lived junk? On the other hand, until it
           | does fall down, I suppose it's a risk to anyone who wants to
           | launch up through it.
        
         | veunes wrote:
         | Sustainable space exploration is needed
        
         | golergka wrote:
         | Wouldn't all LEO stuff just de-orbit and burn eventually?
        
       | mkl wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/A2ZhJ
        
       | amelius wrote:
       | Nice opening image, but what would the view be like from Earth?
        
         | jessriedel wrote:
         | Ron Miller is an artist who made some very nice visualizations.
         | I can't vouch for the scientific accuracy, but they seem
         | plausible enough to me, and consistent with the images I've
         | seen of Saturn's rings from nearby probes.
         | 
         | https://www.planetary.org/articles/20130626-earths-skies-sat...
        
           | morsch wrote:
           | Wow, now I'm sad I don't live in that reality.
        
           | johnchristopher wrote:
           | Rings like that would have been a game changer for early
           | navigation.
        
           | veunes wrote:
           | I don't know, but I get goosebumps from pictures like these
        
         | KineticLensman wrote:
         | Off the top of my head, if the rings were a narrow band around
         | the Earth, and were aligned with the terrestrial equator, they
         | would be less visible from high or low latitudes. If they were
         | aligned with the plane of the ecliptic, then they would be
         | visible as a band following the 'zodiac constellations', and
         | thus visible much further North and South.
         | 
         | At night, in the shadow of the Earth, I'd think that they would
         | be dark, perhaps even invisible. Perhaps moonlight would serve
         | to illuminate them, depending on the relative position of the
         | Sun and Moon.
         | 
         | I'd guess they would look most impressive around and dusk. The
         | particle density and albedo would influence whether they would
         | be visible during full daylight. The ring density would affect
         | whether they had sharp edges or simply faded out away from the
         | centre.
        
           | BurningFrog wrote:
           | Only part of the visible rings would be dark at night. You'd
           | see sunlit parts on both sides of the shaded part.
        
       | ChumpGPT wrote:
       | > Planetary rings may be one of space's many spectacles, but in
       | our solar system, they're a dime a dozen. While Saturn's rings
       | are the brightest and most extensive, Jupiter and Uranus and
       | Neptune have them, too,likely the dwindling remains of shredded
       | asteroids or comets.
       | 
       | Reading "The Ring Makers of Saturn", Dr. Bergrun suggests
       | something very different.
        
       | GolfPopper wrote:
       | I find myself, perhaps irrationally, quite irked that the picture
       | headlining the article uses a picture of _current_ Earth with
       | rings, when Earth 's surface 466 million years ago looked much
       | different[1]. The paper itself [2] does have a map, although
       | (understandably) not an artist's depiction. Most other sources
       | covering the paper appear to have repurposed "ringed terrestrial
       | planet" artwork, but I found one has an artist's rendition[3] to
       | mollify myself.
       | 
       | 1. https://dinosaurpictures.org/ancient-earth#450 2.
       | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X2...
       | 3. https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-had-saturn-
       | rings-466-182200...
        
         | jtwaleson wrote:
         | I live in the Netherlands, which has a province reclaimed from
         | the sea in the 20th century. You'd be surprised how many
         | documentaries of "Europe during the ice ages" etc show this
         | province (Flevoland) on their maps. Always makes me chuckle.
        
         | Sparkyte wrote:
         | I was about to write this complaint myself then I found your
         | comment. The planet would've looked completely different and
         | unrecognizable when we had rings.
         | 
         | I mean technically we have rings now too thanks to Elon Musk
         | and the billions of space trash orbiting the planet. But Earth
         | with rings legit rings was a whole other experience.
        
       | nprateem wrote:
       | The ring of Uranus. One of the wonders of the solar system.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-10-06 23:00 UTC)