Need wormhole tech most likely. Otherwise, doing it remotely is probably your best bet.

Well you gotta hang onto what you got amirite? Good luck out there! :P

That makes absolutely zero sense. But at least you're consistent.

A nuclear will never happen? lol

I didn't realize that you were so naive...

And a space war is almost certain to happen eventually. Same with a nuclear war. That's what humans do. It's a shame but that's reality for you.

To ignore that sad reality of humanity just makes it that much more likely when go around aggressively militarizing space.

I was just quoting the number the original Kessler guy used.

"We are talking at most 5 years for all the debris to clear out, at which point LEO is open again."

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/zch0c8/comment/iyyg9n6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

lol

​

I think the point still stands though. You're basically saying a space war would be no big deal because space is big and Starlink is low.

But I think that's horrifically oversimplifying things. You yourself mentioned the elephant in the room, ie nuclear war. All of this plays into that. And further calls into question the aggressive militarization of space given it could lead to that.

It's like you guys are making my argument for me. :P

Let's say Elon deploys his dream of a 30k constellation and that thing runaway chain reacts with each other.

Very often, you'll hear from the fanbase that could happen but it wouldn't be a big deal because it will all deorbit in 5 years.

But it actually would be a very big deal for everyone involved in space. Anything between the upper shells and the ground would likely be very negatively affected up to and including getting destroyed.

A lot of people would likely end up being very very unhappy that the hubris of a 30k constellation caused the world to have to put their space ambitions on hold for 5 years and sacrifice whatever got in the way of the carnage.

What you're doing here is very similar.

A space war generating a bunch of debris would be very bad for space business and could cause either a partial or complete shutdown of space while everything clears out. Any debris higher than VLEO would likely have knock-on effects for years or decades down the road.

And the very fact we had the first space war resulting in a bunch of space assets getting blown up would likely have a significant cooling of people's space ambitions in general. And could result in earth orbit becoming a military no man's land if the military tensions continue.

For some reason I can't reply to your last reply but here's my response anyway :P

My point with the whole "Kessler or no" debate was that you don't need a full on Kessler to have a dramatic impact on LEO and beyond.

If you really must die on the hill of "it's all Kessler", that's fine. A full on Kessler makes my point even more dramatically. If you think all space debris can be construed as Kessler, that's great. I'm happy for you. I disagree but it's mostly irrelevant to my main argument.

So it's not Kessler Syndrome. I agree. lol

The crazy thing is that whether or not a particular debris field or cascade qualifies as Kessler Syndrome really doesn't affect my core argument. If anything a space war leading to a runaway chain reaction helps solidify my argument.

It's a simple question. Yes or no. Would a wrench falling off the space shuttle qualify as Kessler Syndrome?

Is a wrench falling off the Space Shuttle Kessler Syndrome?

So no runaway chain reaction required for your version of Kessler? What if a wrench fell of the Space Shuttle, would that qualify as Kessler Syndrome?

How so?

Why is ASAT the sole arbiter of potential debris? Are you now also saying you know about every single weapon system the US has in its arsenal?

Somehow given your position on wrenches == Kessler Syndrome, I'm not really sure I trust your space expertise.

lol

How about GPS? Those can be pretty high. Seems like that might be something that the bad guys might have in their targets.

Speaking of bad guys, what if the bad guys have military stuff that's in orbits that don't decay for decades or centuries?

You're right that debris is debris. But the wrench they dropped off the Shuttle and has subsequently decayed is not Kessler Syndrome. I know you really want it to be but it's not. It's just debris.

I notice you said the vast majority but you didn't say all.

Do you know the altitude of every single military asset in space? Is that listed somewhere that we could both look?

And the wrench is debris. You're right about that but still wrong about Kessler.

By your theory though, everything is Kessler including the wrench that they dropped off the Space Shuttle 30 years ago. It's kind of a ridiculously broad take.

And I didn't ignore anything. You just tried to dodge the issue that we don't know the altitude of every military satellite.

The reality is that a space war could very well lead to long duration debris fields that will impact space operations for the duration. And, as I mentioned earlier, the first space war could change the way everyone operates in space for the foreseeable future. Particularly given how much cheaper it is to deny space than it is to "defend" it.

Right now it's an "everyone's-land". After the first space war, it could turn into a no-mans-land. And to the extent the US escalation in space plays a part in that potential future, that makes the US the baddie in space right now.

Not all debris cascades runaway. To be Kessler, they need to runaway. Your pet theory of decay in a couple years and everything's fine is not Kessler. No matter how much you try to shoehorn it in there. I'm kind of shocked you're still trying while so obviously being wrong.

And I just want to make sure we're clear that you can have decade or century long decay times in LEO. And that we don't know if the military has stuff higher than VLEO. Particularly, if you are correct and going higher gives you some immunity to cheap ASATs.

Are we clear on that?

Well you're wrong on a number of points there. Let me try to explain a couple of them to you.

LEO very much does contain century long decay orbits. LEO extends out to 1000 miles or so. Technically, at the extreme, that could go all the way to thousand year decay. Maybe more.

I think most of the military stuff is a bit lower than that. But, if you're right and ASAT weapons are limited to lower LEO orbits that seems like that would be a pretty decent incentive to put your important stuff up there out of range of the easy ASAT kill.

Kessler is the long term debris cascade that runs away on itself...over the long term. If your theory that the debris clears in a few years and is nothing to worry about, then, it's not Kessler. Because it's over in just a few years and doesn't run away on itself. It's just a middling debris cascade that creates a little bit more debris and then decays.

The point being that you can have a debris cascade that eventually peters out. Technically, if some debris hits just one other satellite creating more debris that would qualify as a "debris cascade (of 1)".

And a debris cascade that eventually peters out is by definition NOT KESSLER. All debris probably contributes in some way to the long term runaway Kessler. But not all debris cascades are Kessler.

I guess we have to do this one thing at a time.

The point is you don't need a Kessler. That's the worst case scenario. An ordinary space war generating debris fields with century long decay times is good enough. Or a midling debris cascade that doesn't go full Kessler.

What part of that aren't you getting????

The Space Force is new. As is the sabre rattling "battles of attrition" and proliferation and coyly hinting about our shiny new space weapons.

All that stuff is new. Starlink is new. And the military competitive advantage it provides just makes the potential escalation to a hot war in space all the more likely. So that's also new.

And we were already the biggest dog on the block with the strongest military on the planet by a huge margin. And the destabilization caused by all that sabre rattling when we were already top dog is what makes the US the baddie in space right now.

And you don't need a Kessler is what I keep saying. But you keep bringing it up for some reason possibly because you don't want to face the implications of debris fields with century long decay periods. That would probably be a loss if you were to admit that.

The balance of power is changing. The US is actively discussing and building a space military hegemony capable of withstanding "battles of attrition". One would have to assume that applies not only to the observational/Starlink stuff but also the space weaponry aspects. And the US is doing it quite publicly and dare I say it flagrantly.

That combined with the military utility and competitive advantage granted by space assets such as Starlink really ups the chances that the next big US war will start in space. Or some other war will bleed over into space to deny the US or its allies the use of those competitive advantages.

It seems pretty clear that you're fixated on Kessler. Probably thinking that was an easy win for you. But it's really not all that relevant. You can keep talking about it though I guess.

I think you have to assume the US already had that or something similar as well. Even before Space Force. To think otherwise would be foolish.

The balance of power is changing. The US is asserting military hegemony over space. And is also leveraging space assets to give them an insurmountable competitive advantage on the battlefield. These are both very dangerous to the continuation of the peaceful exploitation and exploration of space. This is what makes the US the baddie here. :(

And...

Again...

Kessler doesn't matter because you don't need a full on Kessler to deny access to space. A run of the mill space war or minor debris cascade will do just fine.

That's why continually repeating the Kessler red herring is a fallacious argument.

“We need to take a very hard look at what capabilities we keep concealed, as in our, quote, ‘ace-in-the-hole’ capabilities, if you will, that we would only use in an actual conflict to ensure we maintain the military overmatch we would need to ensure victory, without allowing the enemy to devise ways to defeat that particular capability by having advance knowledge of it”

Which could include space based weapons or satellites that chase other satellites around. Hunter-killers if you will. Pretty much everything is on the table and it would be foolish to think that we aren't deploying weapons up there. I think at this point you (or our adversaries) just have to assume we are and hope that maybe we aren't. But I don't think it's that big of an assumption.

And, you can say a debris cascade isn't worth considering. But it actually is. A debris cascade is a big deal and it will lock us out of space for however long. Even without a cascade, a space war is going to seriously impact future space operations.

And the destabilization that comes with the US aggressively asserting its space hegemony puts the US and the world at large in as much danger as the "defense" capabilities the Space Force brings to the table.

But we are putting weapons up there. You can keep denying it but the cat's already out of the bag (and should not be that surprising if you're being honest).

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/08/pentagon-posed-to-unveil-classified-space-weapon/

​

And a simple debris cascade is enough to lock us out due to debris for as long as it takes the debris to deorbit which could be decades or centuries. Beyond that, an actual war in space could change the paradigm WRT space exploration and exploitation as we currently know it. Denial may become the dominant force. Particularly given denial is much cheaper than exploitation.

Kessler is a red herring. The debris from a space war is enough. And when you consider the first space war might just end the peaceful exploitation of space, that by itself should be enough to give you pause.

No one is militarizing space to the extent that the US is. Prior to the Space Force, the US had a qualitative and quantitative lead in space militarization. With Space Force escalating and proliferating militarization, that lead is only going to increase along with the tensions that come with all that saber rattling and proliferation and escalation.

And a US military space hegemony threatens everyone else's early warning systems as much or more than it protects ours. Which is a significant destabilizing factor making nuclear war and/or a space war to end that hegemony all that much more likely.

Regarding OneWeb, last I checked, the Brits aren't constantly talking about proliferating space militarization and "battles of attrition" in space. And I don't recall them creating a whole new branch of the MIC dedicated to space war.

If you're the little guy in the space military race, maybe it makes sense to rattle a bunch of sabers and talk about proliferation and coyly hint about all your fancy new space weapons.

But if you're already the top dog by a large margin and you do all that stuff, dramatically destabilizing the balance of power in space and escalating towards the first space war, that's what makes you the baddie.