←back to thread

Space Debris: Is It a Crisis?

(www.esa.int)
61 points defrost | 1 comments | 03 Apr 25 10:35 UTC | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
matthewdgreen ◴[03 Apr 25 11:39 UTC] No.43568165[source]▶
One question I’ve been wondering about (and please hear me out because this is an honest question and I know nothing about this area.)

SpaceX’s Starship is being built based on the (business) principle that extremely low cost-to-orbit will be a good business, because it will unlock a huge market for launches. Some tiny fraction of these launches will probably go beyond Earth’s orbit. A much larger fraction (eg Starlink) will be aimed at low orbits where Kessler Syndrome can be avoided (unless there are major accidents.) But at least some of that new mass is going to wind up in higher orbits where Kessler syndrome is already a risk, and this new mass will obviously increase the risk of a disaster. And so far I’m only talking about Starship and SpaceX, not its competitors.

My question is: is there a world where Starship is a viable economic project — meaning its investment pays back at the rate SpaceX is betting on — but where it does not also dramatically increase the risk of disaster? And what exactly does the model of “successful Starship / no Kessler syndrome” look like in terms of future launches? Has anyone modeled this?

replies(3): >>43568344 #>>43568470 #>>43568623 #
sneak ◴[03 Apr 25 11:57 UTC] No.43568344[source]▶
I would imagine the incentives being aligned (SX can’t make full economic and cultural Starship ROI if there is a planetsized wall of debris they can’t fly through) means that there will be multiple independent overlapping checks both private and government for each launch mission to ensure that it doesn’t become worse.

SpaceX stands to lose just as much as the rest of us if they fuck this up, possibly more.

replies(4): >>43568407 #>>43568489 #>>43568536 #>>43568538 #
bell-cot ◴[03 Apr 25 12:10 UTC] No.43568489[source]▶
I'd bet there is a very wide gray zone between the current situation, and a "planetsized wall of debris", which badly damaged SpaceX's bottom line.

And, in much of that gray zone, SpaceX could be the very profitable leader in a booming market for launching all the replacement satellites, heavier collision-"resistant" satellites, and debris-sweeping satellites.

replies(1): >>43568878 #
sneak ◴[03 Apr 25 12:52 UTC] No.43568878[source]▶
This is a good point, but I thought the fundamental idea of Kessler syndrome is a cascade trigger point which rapidly and inevitably becomes the point of no return at which the effects become inescapable.
replies(1): >>43569445 #
1. bell-cot ◴[03 Apr 25 13:39 UTC] No.43569445[source]▶
Guess: Doom-preaching scientists often have vested interests in preserving very expensive, hard-to-replace satellites - say, Hubble. Journalists know that "more doom" => "more clicks". Nationalists and military folks love to talk smack about other nations' debris-spreading accidents and ASAT activities. And the whole canon and mindset of Kessler-ology was established before SpaceX made launch (of replacement satellites) anywhere near so quick and cheap as it would be now.