← Back to context

Comment by lxgr

8 hours ago

I'd consider it much less likely than e.g. nuclear or maybe chemical/biological warfare.

Kessler syndrome (if even achievable with current technology) would be a major bummer for science and the global economy for a couple of decades (no more Starlink, but we still have good old geostationary satellites, so no ships and airplanes would get disconnected as a result), or at worst centuries, but would otherwise not form any threat to civilization, whereas nuclear winter is already very capable of wiping it out.

5 comments

lxgr

Reply
m4rtink  2 hours ago

I think it would be actually the other way around - Starlink orbits aee low enough to be self cleaning & Starlink satellites can be (and are) rapidly replenished. So even if something from up above hits anfew, the debris would deorbit soon & new ones could be launched.

With GEO sats, unless you go for direct GEO insertion, it might still have issues reaching the final orbit. And even at GEO, there could be a debris cloud as well causing issues, at least until the sun and moon gravity perturbs it enough.

fragmede  3 hours ago

> if even achievable with current technology

Launching a nail bomb into orbit would've been possible as soon as we were able to get into space, the only question is motivation. A terrorist state, say North Korea, threaten the rest of the planet and demand concessions once they're able to get any significant mass into orbit.

  • Cthulhu_  1 hour ago

    I'd say intentionally destroying space assets etc should be considered an act of war (compare attacking another nation's ship in international waters), NK wouldn't have a chance and they could be put into space lockdown where any launches are intercepted.

    • PittleyDunkin  41 minutes ago

      Good luck dragging people into war over space trash that doesn't even benefit most peoples' lives in any material sense.