←back to thread

95 points cratermoon | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.631s | source
Show context
mapt ◴[] No.42198516[source]
The current trajectory is that SpaceX proved the commercial and military viability of an LEO megaconstellation, repeatedly lowering their target altitudes and raising their satellite count because of debris and cell size concerns...

And now the rest of the world is trying to catch up in a sort of arms race, and not taking any care about debris concerns. The most tempting orbits are the ones in upper LEO that permit them to launch fewer satellites.

SpaceX are going to end up well under 500km (orbital lifespan: a decade) before things are finished, and they switched to very low orbit staging with SEP spiral out to reach final orbit a ways back.

China's newest constellation Thousand Sails is at an altitude of 800km (orbital lifespan: thousands of years), with a thousand satellites in the works over the next year or so and 14,000 planned, and they're launching them using chemical upper stages designed to explode into a thousand pieces at the target altitude. This is sufficient for Kessler Syndrome all on its own, without counting interactions with anything else up there. A catastropic debris cascade at 800km percolates down to lower altitudes over time and impacts.

We need viable treaties limiting development beyond 400 or 500km and we need them ten years ago.

I don't know how to sell the urgency of this predicament. You can have as many satellites as you want, a million uncoordinated bodies, at 400km because direct collision potential scales with (satellite count / orbital lifespan) ^2 . At 1000km, satellites decay so slowly we are already too crowded; we have already overused the space. We are speed-running the end of the space age and we are doing it to save a small number of dollars and to avoid a small amount of diplomacy.

This is not something we get a do-over on. There is no practical way to collect ton-scale debris at present, no way to track kilogram-scale debris, no practical way to shield pressure vessels against gram-scale debris, and even milligram-scale debris can hit with the force of a bullet. After collisions start occurring at a rapid clip, the mass of potential impactors quickly forms a long tailed lognormal distribution that denies us space for centuries.

replies(10): >>42198566 #>>42198775 #>>42198922 #>>42199151 #>>42199177 #>>42199520 #>>42201406 #>>42201836 #>>42201926 #>>42201995 #
perihelions ◴[] No.42199177[source]
Why would any of the US' adversaries agree to that? We have SpaceX, and they do not; lowering the altitude of megaconstellations is asymmetrically far more costly for them then it is for us.

Stopping China's (highly strategic, military) satellite constellations isn't a "small amount of diplomacy". It's an impossibility.

(It's even their declared planning that deliberate Kessler cascades are on the table [0]—to try to ground this discussion in diplomatic reality).

[0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/chin... ("China military must be able to destroy Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites if they threaten national security: scientists")

replies(4): >>42199498 #>>42199937 #>>42201455 #>>42203046 #
mapt ◴[] No.42199937[source]
Invite them in. Launch their satellites for them, at 400km. Give them cash or territory. Give away the farm. How doesn't matter. What matters is that we start coexisting at 300-500km, and we mutually taboo launching large amounts to altitudes much higher than that.

There is no stable Mutually Assured Destruction Nash equilibrium here, if either of us does this thing it causes dramatic harm to both.

Not regarding that as a worthwhile goal is "mineshaft gap" thinking - a zero-sum mentality entirely ignoring our collective advantage in order to pursue competitive advantage.

It is perfectly feasible to run a Chinese constellation alongside Starlink sharing the same space, orbitally. Very low orbits are self cleaning.

replies(4): >>42200763 #>>42200975 #>>42200985 #>>42203010 #
1. nradov ◴[] No.42200763[source]
There is no world in which giving cash or territory to the Chinese Communist Party would be acceptable to US taxpayers, regardless of the consequences.
replies(2): >>42201457 #>>42202054 #
2. tehjoker ◴[] No.42201457[source]
i think you mean war-hawk capitalists, this taxpayer thinks cooperation is fine
replies(1): >>42202580 #
3. mapt ◴[] No.42202054[source]
We've been doing it since Deng for the sake of making a few CEOs and shareholders richer. China operates or is monopsony sponsor of numerous pieces of infrastructure around the world in the name of trade.
4. mionhe ◴[] No.42202580[source]
Not in that context.

China as a whole is seen differently than the Chinese Communist Party.