this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
156 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1656 readers
327 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

of course he was afraid of russian nuukes. this only prompted Ukrainian engineers to bypass use of starlink entirely and current sea drones, like the one used in second Kerch bridge strike, or these used against SIG tanker and Olenegorsky Gornyak landing ship use domestic technology only

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago (6 children)

@swlabr @wagesj45

Can't go to Mars if your massive satellite constellation (plus competitors) results in enough space junk to make reaching orbit difficult.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Starlink causing a Kessler event and grounding all spaceflight would be delicious irony, but I believe their orbits are too low for this to be a problem. Instead they just annoy astronomers and Russians.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

@gerikson

On the other hand, Kessler wrote: "Some of the most environmentally dangerous activities in space include large constellations such as those initially proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s"

SDI's Brilliant Pebbles originally proposed a 10,000 unit LEO constellation.

Starlink is already close to 5,000, and Musk wants 30,000. Add in the Chinese effort estimated at ~13,000. OneWeb has 500-600 up there.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

@gerikson

Even if it doesn't rapidly degenerate into a full-blown Kessler Event, I'd have to think there'd be enough going on there to increase uncertainty and risk.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)