QuixoticgeekFeb 1

There are currently about 12600 satellites in orbit. As a result on average every day 3 fall out of space, dumping metals and other nasties into the upper atmosphere.

If we continue that rate of satellite loss, 1 in 4200, and extrapolate it to 1,000,000. That would be ~238 satellites PER DAY, falling out of the sky and spreading the materials they are made up of in the upper atmosphere. With some more substantial chunks hitting the surface, and possibly people.

That's just bonkers

1/n

Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 1

This of course completely overlooks all other practicalities of orbital datacentres, that makes putting high power computing in orbit. Which for a summary include: too much radiation noise making the systems unstable (see Wikipedia for "single even upset"), cooling when you have to dump heat into a vacuum, low data bandwidth (compared to a fibre on earth), latency, and shear fucking cost.

It's an absolutely fucking stupid idea. And I'm angry I have to spend my Sunday debunking this shit.

2/2

Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 1
Postscript: and before the cult of space Karen start with the "so you're an expert in orbital computing this week are you?" Well. One of my first jobs out of uni involved designing an onboard control system for a satellite. My design has literally been to space. I know what I'm talking about on this one.
Show threadDavid Penfold 

@quixoticgeek There's also the Kessler Syndrome cascading debris risk that the boffins at ESA and EUMETSAT were worrying about 15 years ago (yes, I worked at the latter in Darmstadt).

Once we get there it's goodbye LEO for thé foreseeable future.

Feb 1 at 11:55amWeb
Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 1
@davep good bye orbit. Who's gonna want to risk launching through a debris shell to get into orbit? What radio signals are we gonna get through the noise?
Show threadDavid Penfold Feb 1
@quixoticgeek Yup, that too. Russian roulette for every launch isn't a great idea.
Show threadDavid Penfold Feb 1
@quixoticgeek looping in @sundogplanets for someone with more up to date and better understanding of the whole thing than me.
Show threadOldGeekFeb 1
@quixoticgeek @davep not just radio seems like it is already interfering with earth based observation, large debris fields just making it worse.
Show threadVery Human RobotFeb 1
@davep @quixoticgeek
The low orbit cleans itself up.
The high orbits are so insanely big that there's a fair amount of margin before we'd get even 1/10 of a percent of mission failures.
Show threadDavid Penfold Feb 1
@StompyRobot @quixoticgeek
Citation?
Show threadDavid Penfold Feb 1

@StompyRobot @quixoticgeek

Counter-argument.

https://payloadspace.com/esa-report-shows-unsustainable-levels-of-orbital-debris/

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/niac/niac-studies/addressing-key-challenges-to-mapping-sub-cm-orbital-debris-in-leo-via-plasma-soliton-detection/

ESA Report Shows Unsustainable Levels of Orbital Debris

Congestion has gotten so bad in LEO that ESA warns the future of space travel could be in jeopardy.

Payload
Show threadVery Human RobotFeb 1
@davep @quixoticgeek
Yes, that report agrees. In that report, here's 30 close events and 0-1 impacts per year, well below 0.1% mission failure.
The report also includes the mitigations that work, which doesn't include "use fewer satellites and go to space less."
Show threadDavid Penfold Feb 1

@StompyRobot @quixoticgeek

"Things have become so congested that the cumulative volume of spacecraft and debris in LEO is unsustainable, ESA’s 2024 Space Environment Report determined."

Is pretty unequivocal about the trajectory over time. "The low orbit cleans itself up" is not based in fact over our timescales.

Show threadVery Human RobotFeb 1
@davep @quixoticgeek I read the report. Their definition of "unsustainable" is much less tolerant of risk than the bar I argued for.
Show threadDavid Penfold Feb 1

@StompyRobot @quixoticgeek
The point is the amount of debris is increasing as I originally said.

"The low orbit cleans itself up" is patent nonsense. Time for a block, I'm afraid.