Can I render satellite deployment impossible, or at least impractical, by exploiting the Kessler...

Is there a simple example that empirical evidence is misleading?

Why is the Eisenstein ideal paper so great?

Why'd a rational buyer offer to buy with no conditions precedent?

What is the use case for non-breathable waterproof pants?

How to teach an undergraduate course without having taken that course formally before?

Why does Bran want to find Drogon?

Piping the output of comand columns

Why did other houses not demand this?

How did the Allies achieve air superiority on Sicily?

What could be my risk mitigation strategies if my client wants to contract UAT?

Are PMR446 walkie-talkies legal in Switzerland?

Status of proof by contradiction and excluded middle throughout the history of mathematics?

One word for 'the thing that attracts me'?

Unary Enumeration

Are runways booked by airlines to land their planes?

How to write numbers and percentage?

Alexandrov's generalization of Cauchy's rigidity theorem

Is "vegetable base" a common term in English?

Are there any German nonsense poems (Jabberwocky)?

Why did Drogon spare this character?

How to create a `range`-like iterable object of floats?

Are there historical examples of audiences drawn to a work that was "so bad it's good"?

Complications of displaced core material?

Why does the painters tape have to be blue?



Can I render satellite deployment impossible, or at least impractical, by exploiting the Kessler syndrome?


Could deliberately induced Kessler Syndrome stop ICBMs?How long would it take us to detect a Deimos-like object moving towards Sol from Alpha CentauriDealing with space debris and Kessler SyndromeHow can I prevent Kessler Syndrome among space stations?Ugh, I'm stuck in an orbital spaceport. But why?Is there actually a way to create total orbital denial?A cure for the 'Kessler Syndrome'?What is a reasonable energy solution for a proposed solar system wide Laser Propulsion array?Space colony in isolation due to Kessler SyndromeDetermining this horseshoe/co-orbital moon's possible orbital periodsHelp, my Death Star suffers from Kessler syndrome!













8












$begingroup$


I want to render impractical the deployment of satellites by exploiting the Kessler syndrome.



Why, you ask? Maybe I'm an evil overlord and I don't want those pesky satellites flying over my lair.
Maybe I'm an alien in disguise and I want to disrupt comms and GPS as a preparation of an incoming invasion.
Maybe I just want to do it for the lulz. The reason does not matter.



Now, I wonder what is the most efficient way to do it?



The wikipedia article on Kessler syndrome suggests that a good starting point is blowing up the Envisat.



For the purpose of this question, let's assume current level of technology, that I already have a small number of satellites in orbit and I have the technical and financial means to get more of them in space. Also, according to my understanding, sooner or later the orbiting debris will be pulled away from orbit, so let's assume that I want the debris field to last at least 200 years.



Bonus points if you can provide a low budget/low tech solution and/or can render inaccessible all orbit altitudes.



EDIT: I dont believe that my question is a duplicate of this one, because my goal is not to prevent launches, but to prevent objects from orbiting for a significant amount of time. So I don't mind if ICBMs, standard missiles, rockets and planes fly as long as they stay below LEO or can't maintain their orbit.
Also,some comments highlighted the fact that the debris field will decay over time and that's a good point; so I'll offer a variation on the question (I'm kinda new here and I don't know if this is allowed, please let me know):
Can I simply destroy or render unusable all current orbiting satellites by means of Kessler syndrome?










share|improve this question









New contributor



Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Odd. I thought this was a duplicate, but it seems almost every other question is about how to deal with Kessler syndrome, not how best to cause it. +1.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    P.S: Muahahahaha.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The most efficient way to prevent Earth from launching spacecraft is not Kessler syndrome at all. It is to 1) Bribe or blackmail launchpad workers to sabotage their own launches, and 2) Foment states to shoot down each others' few successful launches. This way, your own formidable space-weaponry can remain undetected and rarely used...and won't itself fall prey to errant debris.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    8 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Could deliberately induced Kessler Syndrome stop ICBMs?
    $endgroup$
    – kingledion
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can’t have a debris field that prevents all launches for 200 years, unless you are continually replenishing it. Because the debris in low orbits will decay and burn up much faster than that, and so those low orbits will become available for launches.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    8 hours ago
















8












$begingroup$


I want to render impractical the deployment of satellites by exploiting the Kessler syndrome.



Why, you ask? Maybe I'm an evil overlord and I don't want those pesky satellites flying over my lair.
Maybe I'm an alien in disguise and I want to disrupt comms and GPS as a preparation of an incoming invasion.
Maybe I just want to do it for the lulz. The reason does not matter.



Now, I wonder what is the most efficient way to do it?



The wikipedia article on Kessler syndrome suggests that a good starting point is blowing up the Envisat.



For the purpose of this question, let's assume current level of technology, that I already have a small number of satellites in orbit and I have the technical and financial means to get more of them in space. Also, according to my understanding, sooner or later the orbiting debris will be pulled away from orbit, so let's assume that I want the debris field to last at least 200 years.



Bonus points if you can provide a low budget/low tech solution and/or can render inaccessible all orbit altitudes.



EDIT: I dont believe that my question is a duplicate of this one, because my goal is not to prevent launches, but to prevent objects from orbiting for a significant amount of time. So I don't mind if ICBMs, standard missiles, rockets and planes fly as long as they stay below LEO or can't maintain their orbit.
Also,some comments highlighted the fact that the debris field will decay over time and that's a good point; so I'll offer a variation on the question (I'm kinda new here and I don't know if this is allowed, please let me know):
Can I simply destroy or render unusable all current orbiting satellites by means of Kessler syndrome?










share|improve this question









New contributor



Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Odd. I thought this was a duplicate, but it seems almost every other question is about how to deal with Kessler syndrome, not how best to cause it. +1.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    P.S: Muahahahaha.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The most efficient way to prevent Earth from launching spacecraft is not Kessler syndrome at all. It is to 1) Bribe or blackmail launchpad workers to sabotage their own launches, and 2) Foment states to shoot down each others' few successful launches. This way, your own formidable space-weaponry can remain undetected and rarely used...and won't itself fall prey to errant debris.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    8 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Could deliberately induced Kessler Syndrome stop ICBMs?
    $endgroup$
    – kingledion
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can’t have a debris field that prevents all launches for 200 years, unless you are continually replenishing it. Because the debris in low orbits will decay and burn up much faster than that, and so those low orbits will become available for launches.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    8 hours ago














8












8








8





$begingroup$


I want to render impractical the deployment of satellites by exploiting the Kessler syndrome.



Why, you ask? Maybe I'm an evil overlord and I don't want those pesky satellites flying over my lair.
Maybe I'm an alien in disguise and I want to disrupt comms and GPS as a preparation of an incoming invasion.
Maybe I just want to do it for the lulz. The reason does not matter.



Now, I wonder what is the most efficient way to do it?



The wikipedia article on Kessler syndrome suggests that a good starting point is blowing up the Envisat.



For the purpose of this question, let's assume current level of technology, that I already have a small number of satellites in orbit and I have the technical and financial means to get more of them in space. Also, according to my understanding, sooner or later the orbiting debris will be pulled away from orbit, so let's assume that I want the debris field to last at least 200 years.



Bonus points if you can provide a low budget/low tech solution and/or can render inaccessible all orbit altitudes.



EDIT: I dont believe that my question is a duplicate of this one, because my goal is not to prevent launches, but to prevent objects from orbiting for a significant amount of time. So I don't mind if ICBMs, standard missiles, rockets and planes fly as long as they stay below LEO or can't maintain their orbit.
Also,some comments highlighted the fact that the debris field will decay over time and that's a good point; so I'll offer a variation on the question (I'm kinda new here and I don't know if this is allowed, please let me know):
Can I simply destroy or render unusable all current orbiting satellites by means of Kessler syndrome?










share|improve this question









New contributor



Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




I want to render impractical the deployment of satellites by exploiting the Kessler syndrome.



Why, you ask? Maybe I'm an evil overlord and I don't want those pesky satellites flying over my lair.
Maybe I'm an alien in disguise and I want to disrupt comms and GPS as a preparation of an incoming invasion.
Maybe I just want to do it for the lulz. The reason does not matter.



Now, I wonder what is the most efficient way to do it?



The wikipedia article on Kessler syndrome suggests that a good starting point is blowing up the Envisat.



For the purpose of this question, let's assume current level of technology, that I already have a small number of satellites in orbit and I have the technical and financial means to get more of them in space. Also, according to my understanding, sooner or later the orbiting debris will be pulled away from orbit, so let's assume that I want the debris field to last at least 200 years.



Bonus points if you can provide a low budget/low tech solution and/or can render inaccessible all orbit altitudes.



EDIT: I dont believe that my question is a duplicate of this one, because my goal is not to prevent launches, but to prevent objects from orbiting for a significant amount of time. So I don't mind if ICBMs, standard missiles, rockets and planes fly as long as they stay below LEO or can't maintain their orbit.
Also,some comments highlighted the fact that the debris field will decay over time and that's a good point; so I'll offer a variation on the question (I'm kinda new here and I don't know if this is allowed, please let me know):
Can I simply destroy or render unusable all current orbiting satellites by means of Kessler syndrome?







physics hard-science orbital-mechanics satellites kessler-syndrome






share|improve this question









New contributor



Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago







Zizzo













New contributor



Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 9 hours ago









ZizzoZizzo

412




412




New contributor



Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Zizzo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Odd. I thought this was a duplicate, but it seems almost every other question is about how to deal with Kessler syndrome, not how best to cause it. +1.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    P.S: Muahahahaha.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The most efficient way to prevent Earth from launching spacecraft is not Kessler syndrome at all. It is to 1) Bribe or blackmail launchpad workers to sabotage their own launches, and 2) Foment states to shoot down each others' few successful launches. This way, your own formidable space-weaponry can remain undetected and rarely used...and won't itself fall prey to errant debris.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    8 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Could deliberately induced Kessler Syndrome stop ICBMs?
    $endgroup$
    – kingledion
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can’t have a debris field that prevents all launches for 200 years, unless you are continually replenishing it. Because the debris in low orbits will decay and burn up much faster than that, and so those low orbits will become available for launches.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    8 hours ago














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Odd. I thought this was a duplicate, but it seems almost every other question is about how to deal with Kessler syndrome, not how best to cause it. +1.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    P.S: Muahahahaha.
    $endgroup$
    – Joe Bloggs
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The most efficient way to prevent Earth from launching spacecraft is not Kessler syndrome at all. It is to 1) Bribe or blackmail launchpad workers to sabotage their own launches, and 2) Foment states to shoot down each others' few successful launches. This way, your own formidable space-weaponry can remain undetected and rarely used...and won't itself fall prey to errant debris.
    $endgroup$
    – user535733
    8 hours ago












  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Could deliberately induced Kessler Syndrome stop ICBMs?
    $endgroup$
    – kingledion
    8 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can’t have a debris field that prevents all launches for 200 years, unless you are continually replenishing it. Because the debris in low orbits will decay and burn up much faster than that, and so those low orbits will become available for launches.
    $endgroup$
    – Mike Scott
    8 hours ago








2




2




$begingroup$
Odd. I thought this was a duplicate, but it seems almost every other question is about how to deal with Kessler syndrome, not how best to cause it. +1.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Odd. I thought this was a duplicate, but it seems almost every other question is about how to deal with Kessler syndrome, not how best to cause it. +1.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
9 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
P.S: Muahahahaha.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
P.S: Muahahahaha.
$endgroup$
– Joe Bloggs
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
The most efficient way to prevent Earth from launching spacecraft is not Kessler syndrome at all. It is to 1) Bribe or blackmail launchpad workers to sabotage their own launches, and 2) Foment states to shoot down each others' few successful launches. This way, your own formidable space-weaponry can remain undetected and rarely used...and won't itself fall prey to errant debris.
$endgroup$
– user535733
8 hours ago






$begingroup$
The most efficient way to prevent Earth from launching spacecraft is not Kessler syndrome at all. It is to 1) Bribe or blackmail launchpad workers to sabotage their own launches, and 2) Foment states to shoot down each others' few successful launches. This way, your own formidable space-weaponry can remain undetected and rarely used...and won't itself fall prey to errant debris.
$endgroup$
– user535733
8 hours ago














$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Could deliberately induced Kessler Syndrome stop ICBMs?
$endgroup$
– kingledion
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Could deliberately induced Kessler Syndrome stop ICBMs?
$endgroup$
– kingledion
8 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
You can’t have a debris field that prevents all launches for 200 years, unless you are continually replenishing it. Because the debris in low orbits will decay and burn up much faster than that, and so those low orbits will become available for launches.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
You can’t have a debris field that prevents all launches for 200 years, unless you are continually replenishing it. Because the debris in low orbits will decay and burn up much faster than that, and so those low orbits will become available for launches.
$endgroup$
– Mike Scott
8 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

This is just going to be a Fermi estimate, because this seems like a fun question to deal with. Let's take a look at the lowest orbital plane around the Earth, Low Earth Orbit. It's 2,000 km above the surface, and the radius of the Earth is 6,000 km. The area is 4*pi*r^2, or 4.5 * 10^8 or 450,000,000 square kilometers. This isn't the full story, because any given object within LEO orbits, crossing a circumference of about 38,000 kilometers.



Now, I can't really use real world data to help calculate, because real world satellites are clustered around certain paths, and you want the entire orbit saturated to the point where no satellites can be safely put in orbit.



If we assigned each orbit the equivalent path of 38,000 kilometers, and assume they can deal with the half a klick on either side of them due to orbit variance, than a simple calculation of 450,000,000/38,000 suggests you would need a mere 12,000 satellites. Of course, you would need to constantly launch more satellites as they'd knock themselves out of orbit. If you want more cluster than one single satellite half a klick away once a year, than adjust the 12,000 number as necessary.



But like I said at the start, this is just a rough Fermi estimation. Currently, we've got around 2,000 satellites, and apparently we're getting woried, so the 12,000 number seems like a good benchmark. Of course, this is for LEO only, and doesn't stop launches, just stable orbits.



Bonus point attempt: According to these numbers, MEO is 36,000 and GEO is 72,000. And the easiest way to do this ... your main problem seems to be getting them into orbit, so just firing them from earth might help, though you'll need to be able to make course corrections in-path. Something akin to Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, where they use a 1,000-foot cannon. So, a railgun-missile launcher? That sounds like an okay way to do it.






share|improve this answer










New contributor



Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    +1 for reasonable looking estimate! I think the asker should take note that this was done for a specific altitude (e.g. a "shell" of debris all at the same altitude). Collisions will affect nearby altitudes and satellites at LEO will drop in altitude as time goes on, but for all this effort what's to stop someone from just putting satellites above or below your debris shell?
    $endgroup$
    – ben
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It'd have to be above, and the answer is nothing, really. But the use of satellites (spying, communication, etc.) decay a bit as they get higher in orbit.
    $endgroup$
    – Halfthawed
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Fair. I guess my point is you've shown what would be roughly necessary to make this doable (you answered the question), but it sure doesn't look efficient to me.
    $endgroup$
    – ben
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    There is another orbit at 2000.5 k m and another at 1999.5. And another at 2001.0. And another at 1999.0. Etc. There is an orbit at 0 degrees inclination and one at 1 degree and one at minus 1 degree. Etc.
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Yup. This is for a shell. It'd probably be good for a klick higher and a klick below, and possibly a few hundred below that thanks to falling debris.
    $endgroup$
    – Halfthawed
    6 hours ago



















1












$begingroup$

You can't stop space travel with Kessler Syndroome.



Kessler syndrome only disables low earth orbit. Low earth orbit is quite clustered, and easy to disable. Medium or long ranged satellites could still orbit, and space ships could still travel upwards. The fragments are a long term risk to any space ships orbiting, not an immediate danger. Only a quarter of satellites are in low earth orbit. Most are in geostationary orbit.



You can stop it with a laser broom and Kessler Syndrome.



One popular suggestion for clearing the earth orbit is what's called the laser broom. A megawatt laser is used to alter the orbit of an object by producing a jet of ablated material. The normal intention for this is of course to remove threats to earth. It could instead be used to make objects collide.



So, you can use your large laser to make as many satellites collide as possible. This should produce a large debris field. You need satellites to track this debris. If anyone attempts to set up a satellite you can use the laser broom to sweep some debris into them. This doesn't require you to go into space, and is much more cost effective than other options.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    May I suggest this is impractical



    It's impractical for the same basic reason that you can't trust a freeway full of cars to guarantee a 50-car pile up during every rush hour.




    • Yes, there are certainly more than enough cars on the freeway to fall into the Kessler Syndrome kind of statistic.


    • True, many cars (but only many) are driven by competent drivers who can be trusted to react in a reasonable manner to the growing chaos.


    • True, unlike space, freeways only move in one direction (not three).



    But the problem persists — and yet almost never happens.



    The Kessler Syndrome is a statistical analysis. There never has been and never will be a guarantee of any catastrophe. You could lob Buicks into LEO hourly for a century and, despite cluttering up LEO something awful, all you have is a statistical chance of a cascade failure that may never happen. In fact, let's look at a terrestrial cascade failure.



    Let's consider forest fires



    Forest fires are the real-life epitome of the Kessler Syndrome. Too many trees in close proximity that get older and dryer with every passing year just waiting for that one random lightning bolt1 to start the cascade failure. You betcha! Forest fires happen every year! But when was the last time you saw the entire forest burn down? It almost never happens. In fact, keeping everything out of LEO via Kessler Syndrome is like expecting the entirety of Canada to burn to the ground in one huge forest fire. It could statistically happen — but it doesn't. Why?




    • Mother Nature stops them by hosting areas without fuel. Like deserts and lakes.


    • Humanity stops them by creating unnatural areas without fuel, like large, paved roads and fire breaks.


    • Both humanity and Mother Nature can stop forest fires by dowsing everything with water (or some synthetic equivalent).



    How does this relate to space? In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." There's a lot of dead, "fueless" space out there. Yes, the statistics say there's a growing problem, but that's just statistics.




    • In reality, there's a whole lot of nothing where debris can harmlessly exist.


    • Large satellites must be hit by high-energy objects or they're more likely to rob the process of energy than they are add to it. That's one of the reasons freeway pile-ups come to a stop. With each collision there's less energy to cause the next collision (and more time for motorists to realize what's going on).


    • And that last bit is important, just like flying planes full of water and motorists realizing something in front of them is more important than the text they're trying to write, satellites with modern tech have the ability to move out of the way. Older satellites have less of this ability. No, it's not perfect — but neither are airplanes full of water or attentive motorists.



    And yet there aren't daily 50-car pile-ups on congested freeways.



    Are my metaphors perfect? Absolutely not! But they make a point. The effort you would need to put into causing and sustaining the Kessler Syndrome is so much greater than the benefit that it isn't worth pursuing.



    It would be cheaper to fire missiles at every launch than it would be to trust in and maintain the Kessler Syndrome.



    Keep in mind, Kessler proposed his problem in 1978 — and despite an increase in satellite launches, it hasn't happened yet.



    Yeah, but I really, really, really want to use the Kessler Syndrome to keep satellites out of orbit! What can I do?



    Use the modern equivalent of a flak cannon. Your Evil Overlord sends up a constant flow of disposable satellites with hundreds or (preferably) thousands of #10 cans full of 1" ball bearings, C4, and a timer. The cans are sent out spherically from the satellite for maximum spread. Like deadly fireworks, they'd send their cargo of ball bearings (quite literally quadrillions of them) into space! They'd cause havoc for as long as you keep sending up satellites — and with each destroyed satellite, you add to the mahem!2





    1Or, in the case of your Evil Overlord, that one deliberate match thrown by a stupid teenager who thinks the result would be really funny.



    2And to top it all off, if you're really lucky, you'd have a constant light show in the sky as bazzillions of 1" ball bearings burn up in the atmosphere. Glitter! So much glitter!






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });






      Zizzo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147375%2fcan-i-render-satellite-deployment-impossible-or-at-least-impractical-by-exploi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      4












      $begingroup$

      This is just going to be a Fermi estimate, because this seems like a fun question to deal with. Let's take a look at the lowest orbital plane around the Earth, Low Earth Orbit. It's 2,000 km above the surface, and the radius of the Earth is 6,000 km. The area is 4*pi*r^2, or 4.5 * 10^8 or 450,000,000 square kilometers. This isn't the full story, because any given object within LEO orbits, crossing a circumference of about 38,000 kilometers.



      Now, I can't really use real world data to help calculate, because real world satellites are clustered around certain paths, and you want the entire orbit saturated to the point where no satellites can be safely put in orbit.



      If we assigned each orbit the equivalent path of 38,000 kilometers, and assume they can deal with the half a klick on either side of them due to orbit variance, than a simple calculation of 450,000,000/38,000 suggests you would need a mere 12,000 satellites. Of course, you would need to constantly launch more satellites as they'd knock themselves out of orbit. If you want more cluster than one single satellite half a klick away once a year, than adjust the 12,000 number as necessary.



      But like I said at the start, this is just a rough Fermi estimation. Currently, we've got around 2,000 satellites, and apparently we're getting woried, so the 12,000 number seems like a good benchmark. Of course, this is for LEO only, and doesn't stop launches, just stable orbits.



      Bonus point attempt: According to these numbers, MEO is 36,000 and GEO is 72,000. And the easiest way to do this ... your main problem seems to be getting them into orbit, so just firing them from earth might help, though you'll need to be able to make course corrections in-path. Something akin to Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, where they use a 1,000-foot cannon. So, a railgun-missile launcher? That sounds like an okay way to do it.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor



      Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        +1 for reasonable looking estimate! I think the asker should take note that this was done for a specific altitude (e.g. a "shell" of debris all at the same altitude). Collisions will affect nearby altitudes and satellites at LEO will drop in altitude as time goes on, but for all this effort what's to stop someone from just putting satellites above or below your debris shell?
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It'd have to be above, and the answer is nothing, really. But the use of satellites (spying, communication, etc.) decay a bit as they get higher in orbit.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Fair. I guess my point is you've shown what would be roughly necessary to make this doable (you answered the question), but it sure doesn't look efficient to me.
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        There is another orbit at 2000.5 k m and another at 1999.5. And another at 2001.0. And another at 1999.0. Etc. There is an orbit at 0 degrees inclination and one at 1 degree and one at minus 1 degree. Etc.
        $endgroup$
        – AlexP
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Yup. This is for a shell. It'd probably be good for a klick higher and a klick below, and possibly a few hundred below that thanks to falling debris.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        6 hours ago
















      4












      $begingroup$

      This is just going to be a Fermi estimate, because this seems like a fun question to deal with. Let's take a look at the lowest orbital plane around the Earth, Low Earth Orbit. It's 2,000 km above the surface, and the radius of the Earth is 6,000 km. The area is 4*pi*r^2, or 4.5 * 10^8 or 450,000,000 square kilometers. This isn't the full story, because any given object within LEO orbits, crossing a circumference of about 38,000 kilometers.



      Now, I can't really use real world data to help calculate, because real world satellites are clustered around certain paths, and you want the entire orbit saturated to the point where no satellites can be safely put in orbit.



      If we assigned each orbit the equivalent path of 38,000 kilometers, and assume they can deal with the half a klick on either side of them due to orbit variance, than a simple calculation of 450,000,000/38,000 suggests you would need a mere 12,000 satellites. Of course, you would need to constantly launch more satellites as they'd knock themselves out of orbit. If you want more cluster than one single satellite half a klick away once a year, than adjust the 12,000 number as necessary.



      But like I said at the start, this is just a rough Fermi estimation. Currently, we've got around 2,000 satellites, and apparently we're getting woried, so the 12,000 number seems like a good benchmark. Of course, this is for LEO only, and doesn't stop launches, just stable orbits.



      Bonus point attempt: According to these numbers, MEO is 36,000 and GEO is 72,000. And the easiest way to do this ... your main problem seems to be getting them into orbit, so just firing them from earth might help, though you'll need to be able to make course corrections in-path. Something akin to Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, where they use a 1,000-foot cannon. So, a railgun-missile launcher? That sounds like an okay way to do it.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor



      Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        +1 for reasonable looking estimate! I think the asker should take note that this was done for a specific altitude (e.g. a "shell" of debris all at the same altitude). Collisions will affect nearby altitudes and satellites at LEO will drop in altitude as time goes on, but for all this effort what's to stop someone from just putting satellites above or below your debris shell?
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It'd have to be above, and the answer is nothing, really. But the use of satellites (spying, communication, etc.) decay a bit as they get higher in orbit.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Fair. I guess my point is you've shown what would be roughly necessary to make this doable (you answered the question), but it sure doesn't look efficient to me.
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        There is another orbit at 2000.5 k m and another at 1999.5. And another at 2001.0. And another at 1999.0. Etc. There is an orbit at 0 degrees inclination and one at 1 degree and one at minus 1 degree. Etc.
        $endgroup$
        – AlexP
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Yup. This is for a shell. It'd probably be good for a klick higher and a klick below, and possibly a few hundred below that thanks to falling debris.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        6 hours ago














      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$

      This is just going to be a Fermi estimate, because this seems like a fun question to deal with. Let's take a look at the lowest orbital plane around the Earth, Low Earth Orbit. It's 2,000 km above the surface, and the radius of the Earth is 6,000 km. The area is 4*pi*r^2, or 4.5 * 10^8 or 450,000,000 square kilometers. This isn't the full story, because any given object within LEO orbits, crossing a circumference of about 38,000 kilometers.



      Now, I can't really use real world data to help calculate, because real world satellites are clustered around certain paths, and you want the entire orbit saturated to the point where no satellites can be safely put in orbit.



      If we assigned each orbit the equivalent path of 38,000 kilometers, and assume they can deal with the half a klick on either side of them due to orbit variance, than a simple calculation of 450,000,000/38,000 suggests you would need a mere 12,000 satellites. Of course, you would need to constantly launch more satellites as they'd knock themselves out of orbit. If you want more cluster than one single satellite half a klick away once a year, than adjust the 12,000 number as necessary.



      But like I said at the start, this is just a rough Fermi estimation. Currently, we've got around 2,000 satellites, and apparently we're getting woried, so the 12,000 number seems like a good benchmark. Of course, this is for LEO only, and doesn't stop launches, just stable orbits.



      Bonus point attempt: According to these numbers, MEO is 36,000 and GEO is 72,000. And the easiest way to do this ... your main problem seems to be getting them into orbit, so just firing them from earth might help, though you'll need to be able to make course corrections in-path. Something akin to Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, where they use a 1,000-foot cannon. So, a railgun-missile launcher? That sounds like an okay way to do it.






      share|improve this answer










      New contributor



      Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      $endgroup$



      This is just going to be a Fermi estimate, because this seems like a fun question to deal with. Let's take a look at the lowest orbital plane around the Earth, Low Earth Orbit. It's 2,000 km above the surface, and the radius of the Earth is 6,000 km. The area is 4*pi*r^2, or 4.5 * 10^8 or 450,000,000 square kilometers. This isn't the full story, because any given object within LEO orbits, crossing a circumference of about 38,000 kilometers.



      Now, I can't really use real world data to help calculate, because real world satellites are clustered around certain paths, and you want the entire orbit saturated to the point where no satellites can be safely put in orbit.



      If we assigned each orbit the equivalent path of 38,000 kilometers, and assume they can deal with the half a klick on either side of them due to orbit variance, than a simple calculation of 450,000,000/38,000 suggests you would need a mere 12,000 satellites. Of course, you would need to constantly launch more satellites as they'd knock themselves out of orbit. If you want more cluster than one single satellite half a klick away once a year, than adjust the 12,000 number as necessary.



      But like I said at the start, this is just a rough Fermi estimation. Currently, we've got around 2,000 satellites, and apparently we're getting woried, so the 12,000 number seems like a good benchmark. Of course, this is for LEO only, and doesn't stop launches, just stable orbits.



      Bonus point attempt: According to these numbers, MEO is 36,000 and GEO is 72,000. And the easiest way to do this ... your main problem seems to be getting them into orbit, so just firing them from earth might help, though you'll need to be able to make course corrections in-path. Something akin to Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, where they use a 1,000-foot cannon. So, a railgun-missile launcher? That sounds like an okay way to do it.







      share|improve this answer










      New contributor



      Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 8 hours ago





















      New contributor



      Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      answered 9 hours ago









      HalfthawedHalfthawed

      698111




      698111




      New contributor



      Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




      New contributor




      Halfthawed is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.














      • $begingroup$
        +1 for reasonable looking estimate! I think the asker should take note that this was done for a specific altitude (e.g. a "shell" of debris all at the same altitude). Collisions will affect nearby altitudes and satellites at LEO will drop in altitude as time goes on, but for all this effort what's to stop someone from just putting satellites above or below your debris shell?
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It'd have to be above, and the answer is nothing, really. But the use of satellites (spying, communication, etc.) decay a bit as they get higher in orbit.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Fair. I guess my point is you've shown what would be roughly necessary to make this doable (you answered the question), but it sure doesn't look efficient to me.
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        There is another orbit at 2000.5 k m and another at 1999.5. And another at 2001.0. And another at 1999.0. Etc. There is an orbit at 0 degrees inclination and one at 1 degree and one at minus 1 degree. Etc.
        $endgroup$
        – AlexP
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Yup. This is for a shell. It'd probably be good for a klick higher and a klick below, and possibly a few hundred below that thanks to falling debris.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        6 hours ago


















      • $begingroup$
        +1 for reasonable looking estimate! I think the asker should take note that this was done for a specific altitude (e.g. a "shell" of debris all at the same altitude). Collisions will affect nearby altitudes and satellites at LEO will drop in altitude as time goes on, but for all this effort what's to stop someone from just putting satellites above or below your debris shell?
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        It'd have to be above, and the answer is nothing, really. But the use of satellites (spying, communication, etc.) decay a bit as they get higher in orbit.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Fair. I guess my point is you've shown what would be roughly necessary to make this doable (you answered the question), but it sure doesn't look efficient to me.
        $endgroup$
        – ben
        8 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        There is another orbit at 2000.5 k m and another at 1999.5. And another at 2001.0. And another at 1999.0. Etc. There is an orbit at 0 degrees inclination and one at 1 degree and one at minus 1 degree. Etc.
        $endgroup$
        – AlexP
        6 hours ago










      • $begingroup$
        Yup. This is for a shell. It'd probably be good for a klick higher and a klick below, and possibly a few hundred below that thanks to falling debris.
        $endgroup$
        – Halfthawed
        6 hours ago
















      $begingroup$
      +1 for reasonable looking estimate! I think the asker should take note that this was done for a specific altitude (e.g. a "shell" of debris all at the same altitude). Collisions will affect nearby altitudes and satellites at LEO will drop in altitude as time goes on, but for all this effort what's to stop someone from just putting satellites above or below your debris shell?
      $endgroup$
      – ben
      8 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      +1 for reasonable looking estimate! I think the asker should take note that this was done for a specific altitude (e.g. a "shell" of debris all at the same altitude). Collisions will affect nearby altitudes and satellites at LEO will drop in altitude as time goes on, but for all this effort what's to stop someone from just putting satellites above or below your debris shell?
      $endgroup$
      – ben
      8 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      It'd have to be above, and the answer is nothing, really. But the use of satellites (spying, communication, etc.) decay a bit as they get higher in orbit.
      $endgroup$
      – Halfthawed
      8 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      It'd have to be above, and the answer is nothing, really. But the use of satellites (spying, communication, etc.) decay a bit as they get higher in orbit.
      $endgroup$
      – Halfthawed
      8 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      Fair. I guess my point is you've shown what would be roughly necessary to make this doable (you answered the question), but it sure doesn't look efficient to me.
      $endgroup$
      – ben
      8 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Fair. I guess my point is you've shown what would be roughly necessary to make this doable (you answered the question), but it sure doesn't look efficient to me.
      $endgroup$
      – ben
      8 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      There is another orbit at 2000.5 k m and another at 1999.5. And another at 2001.0. And another at 1999.0. Etc. There is an orbit at 0 degrees inclination and one at 1 degree and one at minus 1 degree. Etc.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      There is another orbit at 2000.5 k m and another at 1999.5. And another at 2001.0. And another at 1999.0. Etc. There is an orbit at 0 degrees inclination and one at 1 degree and one at minus 1 degree. Etc.
      $endgroup$
      – AlexP
      6 hours ago












      $begingroup$
      Yup. This is for a shell. It'd probably be good for a klick higher and a klick below, and possibly a few hundred below that thanks to falling debris.
      $endgroup$
      – Halfthawed
      6 hours ago




      $begingroup$
      Yup. This is for a shell. It'd probably be good for a klick higher and a klick below, and possibly a few hundred below that thanks to falling debris.
      $endgroup$
      – Halfthawed
      6 hours ago











      1












      $begingroup$

      You can't stop space travel with Kessler Syndroome.



      Kessler syndrome only disables low earth orbit. Low earth orbit is quite clustered, and easy to disable. Medium or long ranged satellites could still orbit, and space ships could still travel upwards. The fragments are a long term risk to any space ships orbiting, not an immediate danger. Only a quarter of satellites are in low earth orbit. Most are in geostationary orbit.



      You can stop it with a laser broom and Kessler Syndrome.



      One popular suggestion for clearing the earth orbit is what's called the laser broom. A megawatt laser is used to alter the orbit of an object by producing a jet of ablated material. The normal intention for this is of course to remove threats to earth. It could instead be used to make objects collide.



      So, you can use your large laser to make as many satellites collide as possible. This should produce a large debris field. You need satellites to track this debris. If anyone attempts to set up a satellite you can use the laser broom to sweep some debris into them. This doesn't require you to go into space, and is much more cost effective than other options.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        1












        $begingroup$

        You can't stop space travel with Kessler Syndroome.



        Kessler syndrome only disables low earth orbit. Low earth orbit is quite clustered, and easy to disable. Medium or long ranged satellites could still orbit, and space ships could still travel upwards. The fragments are a long term risk to any space ships orbiting, not an immediate danger. Only a quarter of satellites are in low earth orbit. Most are in geostationary orbit.



        You can stop it with a laser broom and Kessler Syndrome.



        One popular suggestion for clearing the earth orbit is what's called the laser broom. A megawatt laser is used to alter the orbit of an object by producing a jet of ablated material. The normal intention for this is of course to remove threats to earth. It could instead be used to make objects collide.



        So, you can use your large laser to make as many satellites collide as possible. This should produce a large debris field. You need satellites to track this debris. If anyone attempts to set up a satellite you can use the laser broom to sweep some debris into them. This doesn't require you to go into space, and is much more cost effective than other options.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          You can't stop space travel with Kessler Syndroome.



          Kessler syndrome only disables low earth orbit. Low earth orbit is quite clustered, and easy to disable. Medium or long ranged satellites could still orbit, and space ships could still travel upwards. The fragments are a long term risk to any space ships orbiting, not an immediate danger. Only a quarter of satellites are in low earth orbit. Most are in geostationary orbit.



          You can stop it with a laser broom and Kessler Syndrome.



          One popular suggestion for clearing the earth orbit is what's called the laser broom. A megawatt laser is used to alter the orbit of an object by producing a jet of ablated material. The normal intention for this is of course to remove threats to earth. It could instead be used to make objects collide.



          So, you can use your large laser to make as many satellites collide as possible. This should produce a large debris field. You need satellites to track this debris. If anyone attempts to set up a satellite you can use the laser broom to sweep some debris into them. This doesn't require you to go into space, and is much more cost effective than other options.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          You can't stop space travel with Kessler Syndroome.



          Kessler syndrome only disables low earth orbit. Low earth orbit is quite clustered, and easy to disable. Medium or long ranged satellites could still orbit, and space ships could still travel upwards. The fragments are a long term risk to any space ships orbiting, not an immediate danger. Only a quarter of satellites are in low earth orbit. Most are in geostationary orbit.



          You can stop it with a laser broom and Kessler Syndrome.



          One popular suggestion for clearing the earth orbit is what's called the laser broom. A megawatt laser is used to alter the orbit of an object by producing a jet of ablated material. The normal intention for this is of course to remove threats to earth. It could instead be used to make objects collide.



          So, you can use your large laser to make as many satellites collide as possible. This should produce a large debris field. You need satellites to track this debris. If anyone attempts to set up a satellite you can use the laser broom to sweep some debris into them. This doesn't require you to go into space, and is much more cost effective than other options.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 48 mins ago









          Nepene NepNepene Nep

          759112




          759112























              0












              $begingroup$

              May I suggest this is impractical



              It's impractical for the same basic reason that you can't trust a freeway full of cars to guarantee a 50-car pile up during every rush hour.




              • Yes, there are certainly more than enough cars on the freeway to fall into the Kessler Syndrome kind of statistic.


              • True, many cars (but only many) are driven by competent drivers who can be trusted to react in a reasonable manner to the growing chaos.


              • True, unlike space, freeways only move in one direction (not three).



              But the problem persists — and yet almost never happens.



              The Kessler Syndrome is a statistical analysis. There never has been and never will be a guarantee of any catastrophe. You could lob Buicks into LEO hourly for a century and, despite cluttering up LEO something awful, all you have is a statistical chance of a cascade failure that may never happen. In fact, let's look at a terrestrial cascade failure.



              Let's consider forest fires



              Forest fires are the real-life epitome of the Kessler Syndrome. Too many trees in close proximity that get older and dryer with every passing year just waiting for that one random lightning bolt1 to start the cascade failure. You betcha! Forest fires happen every year! But when was the last time you saw the entire forest burn down? It almost never happens. In fact, keeping everything out of LEO via Kessler Syndrome is like expecting the entirety of Canada to burn to the ground in one huge forest fire. It could statistically happen — but it doesn't. Why?




              • Mother Nature stops them by hosting areas without fuel. Like deserts and lakes.


              • Humanity stops them by creating unnatural areas without fuel, like large, paved roads and fire breaks.


              • Both humanity and Mother Nature can stop forest fires by dowsing everything with water (or some synthetic equivalent).



              How does this relate to space? In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." There's a lot of dead, "fueless" space out there. Yes, the statistics say there's a growing problem, but that's just statistics.




              • In reality, there's a whole lot of nothing where debris can harmlessly exist.


              • Large satellites must be hit by high-energy objects or they're more likely to rob the process of energy than they are add to it. That's one of the reasons freeway pile-ups come to a stop. With each collision there's less energy to cause the next collision (and more time for motorists to realize what's going on).


              • And that last bit is important, just like flying planes full of water and motorists realizing something in front of them is more important than the text they're trying to write, satellites with modern tech have the ability to move out of the way. Older satellites have less of this ability. No, it's not perfect — but neither are airplanes full of water or attentive motorists.



              And yet there aren't daily 50-car pile-ups on congested freeways.



              Are my metaphors perfect? Absolutely not! But they make a point. The effort you would need to put into causing and sustaining the Kessler Syndrome is so much greater than the benefit that it isn't worth pursuing.



              It would be cheaper to fire missiles at every launch than it would be to trust in and maintain the Kessler Syndrome.



              Keep in mind, Kessler proposed his problem in 1978 — and despite an increase in satellite launches, it hasn't happened yet.



              Yeah, but I really, really, really want to use the Kessler Syndrome to keep satellites out of orbit! What can I do?



              Use the modern equivalent of a flak cannon. Your Evil Overlord sends up a constant flow of disposable satellites with hundreds or (preferably) thousands of #10 cans full of 1" ball bearings, C4, and a timer. The cans are sent out spherically from the satellite for maximum spread. Like deadly fireworks, they'd send their cargo of ball bearings (quite literally quadrillions of them) into space! They'd cause havoc for as long as you keep sending up satellites — and with each destroyed satellite, you add to the mahem!2





              1Or, in the case of your Evil Overlord, that one deliberate match thrown by a stupid teenager who thinks the result would be really funny.



              2And to top it all off, if you're really lucky, you'd have a constant light show in the sky as bazzillions of 1" ball bearings burn up in the atmosphere. Glitter! So much glitter!






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                May I suggest this is impractical



                It's impractical for the same basic reason that you can't trust a freeway full of cars to guarantee a 50-car pile up during every rush hour.




                • Yes, there are certainly more than enough cars on the freeway to fall into the Kessler Syndrome kind of statistic.


                • True, many cars (but only many) are driven by competent drivers who can be trusted to react in a reasonable manner to the growing chaos.


                • True, unlike space, freeways only move in one direction (not three).



                But the problem persists — and yet almost never happens.



                The Kessler Syndrome is a statistical analysis. There never has been and never will be a guarantee of any catastrophe. You could lob Buicks into LEO hourly for a century and, despite cluttering up LEO something awful, all you have is a statistical chance of a cascade failure that may never happen. In fact, let's look at a terrestrial cascade failure.



                Let's consider forest fires



                Forest fires are the real-life epitome of the Kessler Syndrome. Too many trees in close proximity that get older and dryer with every passing year just waiting for that one random lightning bolt1 to start the cascade failure. You betcha! Forest fires happen every year! But when was the last time you saw the entire forest burn down? It almost never happens. In fact, keeping everything out of LEO via Kessler Syndrome is like expecting the entirety of Canada to burn to the ground in one huge forest fire. It could statistically happen — but it doesn't. Why?




                • Mother Nature stops them by hosting areas without fuel. Like deserts and lakes.


                • Humanity stops them by creating unnatural areas without fuel, like large, paved roads and fire breaks.


                • Both humanity and Mother Nature can stop forest fires by dowsing everything with water (or some synthetic equivalent).



                How does this relate to space? In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." There's a lot of dead, "fueless" space out there. Yes, the statistics say there's a growing problem, but that's just statistics.




                • In reality, there's a whole lot of nothing where debris can harmlessly exist.


                • Large satellites must be hit by high-energy objects or they're more likely to rob the process of energy than they are add to it. That's one of the reasons freeway pile-ups come to a stop. With each collision there's less energy to cause the next collision (and more time for motorists to realize what's going on).


                • And that last bit is important, just like flying planes full of water and motorists realizing something in front of them is more important than the text they're trying to write, satellites with modern tech have the ability to move out of the way. Older satellites have less of this ability. No, it's not perfect — but neither are airplanes full of water or attentive motorists.



                And yet there aren't daily 50-car pile-ups on congested freeways.



                Are my metaphors perfect? Absolutely not! But they make a point. The effort you would need to put into causing and sustaining the Kessler Syndrome is so much greater than the benefit that it isn't worth pursuing.



                It would be cheaper to fire missiles at every launch than it would be to trust in and maintain the Kessler Syndrome.



                Keep in mind, Kessler proposed his problem in 1978 — and despite an increase in satellite launches, it hasn't happened yet.



                Yeah, but I really, really, really want to use the Kessler Syndrome to keep satellites out of orbit! What can I do?



                Use the modern equivalent of a flak cannon. Your Evil Overlord sends up a constant flow of disposable satellites with hundreds or (preferably) thousands of #10 cans full of 1" ball bearings, C4, and a timer. The cans are sent out spherically from the satellite for maximum spread. Like deadly fireworks, they'd send their cargo of ball bearings (quite literally quadrillions of them) into space! They'd cause havoc for as long as you keep sending up satellites — and with each destroyed satellite, you add to the mahem!2





                1Or, in the case of your Evil Overlord, that one deliberate match thrown by a stupid teenager who thinks the result would be really funny.



                2And to top it all off, if you're really lucky, you'd have a constant light show in the sky as bazzillions of 1" ball bearings burn up in the atmosphere. Glitter! So much glitter!






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  May I suggest this is impractical



                  It's impractical for the same basic reason that you can't trust a freeway full of cars to guarantee a 50-car pile up during every rush hour.




                  • Yes, there are certainly more than enough cars on the freeway to fall into the Kessler Syndrome kind of statistic.


                  • True, many cars (but only many) are driven by competent drivers who can be trusted to react in a reasonable manner to the growing chaos.


                  • True, unlike space, freeways only move in one direction (not three).



                  But the problem persists — and yet almost never happens.



                  The Kessler Syndrome is a statistical analysis. There never has been and never will be a guarantee of any catastrophe. You could lob Buicks into LEO hourly for a century and, despite cluttering up LEO something awful, all you have is a statistical chance of a cascade failure that may never happen. In fact, let's look at a terrestrial cascade failure.



                  Let's consider forest fires



                  Forest fires are the real-life epitome of the Kessler Syndrome. Too many trees in close proximity that get older and dryer with every passing year just waiting for that one random lightning bolt1 to start the cascade failure. You betcha! Forest fires happen every year! But when was the last time you saw the entire forest burn down? It almost never happens. In fact, keeping everything out of LEO via Kessler Syndrome is like expecting the entirety of Canada to burn to the ground in one huge forest fire. It could statistically happen — but it doesn't. Why?




                  • Mother Nature stops them by hosting areas without fuel. Like deserts and lakes.


                  • Humanity stops them by creating unnatural areas without fuel, like large, paved roads and fire breaks.


                  • Both humanity and Mother Nature can stop forest fires by dowsing everything with water (or some synthetic equivalent).



                  How does this relate to space? In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." There's a lot of dead, "fueless" space out there. Yes, the statistics say there's a growing problem, but that's just statistics.




                  • In reality, there's a whole lot of nothing where debris can harmlessly exist.


                  • Large satellites must be hit by high-energy objects or they're more likely to rob the process of energy than they are add to it. That's one of the reasons freeway pile-ups come to a stop. With each collision there's less energy to cause the next collision (and more time for motorists to realize what's going on).


                  • And that last bit is important, just like flying planes full of water and motorists realizing something in front of them is more important than the text they're trying to write, satellites with modern tech have the ability to move out of the way. Older satellites have less of this ability. No, it's not perfect — but neither are airplanes full of water or attentive motorists.



                  And yet there aren't daily 50-car pile-ups on congested freeways.



                  Are my metaphors perfect? Absolutely not! But they make a point. The effort you would need to put into causing and sustaining the Kessler Syndrome is so much greater than the benefit that it isn't worth pursuing.



                  It would be cheaper to fire missiles at every launch than it would be to trust in and maintain the Kessler Syndrome.



                  Keep in mind, Kessler proposed his problem in 1978 — and despite an increase in satellite launches, it hasn't happened yet.



                  Yeah, but I really, really, really want to use the Kessler Syndrome to keep satellites out of orbit! What can I do?



                  Use the modern equivalent of a flak cannon. Your Evil Overlord sends up a constant flow of disposable satellites with hundreds or (preferably) thousands of #10 cans full of 1" ball bearings, C4, and a timer. The cans are sent out spherically from the satellite for maximum spread. Like deadly fireworks, they'd send their cargo of ball bearings (quite literally quadrillions of them) into space! They'd cause havoc for as long as you keep sending up satellites — and with each destroyed satellite, you add to the mahem!2





                  1Or, in the case of your Evil Overlord, that one deliberate match thrown by a stupid teenager who thinks the result would be really funny.



                  2And to top it all off, if you're really lucky, you'd have a constant light show in the sky as bazzillions of 1" ball bearings burn up in the atmosphere. Glitter! So much glitter!






                  share|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  May I suggest this is impractical



                  It's impractical for the same basic reason that you can't trust a freeway full of cars to guarantee a 50-car pile up during every rush hour.




                  • Yes, there are certainly more than enough cars on the freeway to fall into the Kessler Syndrome kind of statistic.


                  • True, many cars (but only many) are driven by competent drivers who can be trusted to react in a reasonable manner to the growing chaos.


                  • True, unlike space, freeways only move in one direction (not three).



                  But the problem persists — and yet almost never happens.



                  The Kessler Syndrome is a statistical analysis. There never has been and never will be a guarantee of any catastrophe. You could lob Buicks into LEO hourly for a century and, despite cluttering up LEO something awful, all you have is a statistical chance of a cascade failure that may never happen. In fact, let's look at a terrestrial cascade failure.



                  Let's consider forest fires



                  Forest fires are the real-life epitome of the Kessler Syndrome. Too many trees in close proximity that get older and dryer with every passing year just waiting for that one random lightning bolt1 to start the cascade failure. You betcha! Forest fires happen every year! But when was the last time you saw the entire forest burn down? It almost never happens. In fact, keeping everything out of LEO via Kessler Syndrome is like expecting the entirety of Canada to burn to the ground in one huge forest fire. It could statistically happen — but it doesn't. Why?




                  • Mother Nature stops them by hosting areas without fuel. Like deserts and lakes.


                  • Humanity stops them by creating unnatural areas without fuel, like large, paved roads and fire breaks.


                  • Both humanity and Mother Nature can stop forest fires by dowsing everything with water (or some synthetic equivalent).



                  How does this relate to space? In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, "Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." There's a lot of dead, "fueless" space out there. Yes, the statistics say there's a growing problem, but that's just statistics.




                  • In reality, there's a whole lot of nothing where debris can harmlessly exist.


                  • Large satellites must be hit by high-energy objects or they're more likely to rob the process of energy than they are add to it. That's one of the reasons freeway pile-ups come to a stop. With each collision there's less energy to cause the next collision (and more time for motorists to realize what's going on).


                  • And that last bit is important, just like flying planes full of water and motorists realizing something in front of them is more important than the text they're trying to write, satellites with modern tech have the ability to move out of the way. Older satellites have less of this ability. No, it's not perfect — but neither are airplanes full of water or attentive motorists.



                  And yet there aren't daily 50-car pile-ups on congested freeways.



                  Are my metaphors perfect? Absolutely not! But they make a point. The effort you would need to put into causing and sustaining the Kessler Syndrome is so much greater than the benefit that it isn't worth pursuing.



                  It would be cheaper to fire missiles at every launch than it would be to trust in and maintain the Kessler Syndrome.



                  Keep in mind, Kessler proposed his problem in 1978 — and despite an increase in satellite launches, it hasn't happened yet.



                  Yeah, but I really, really, really want to use the Kessler Syndrome to keep satellites out of orbit! What can I do?



                  Use the modern equivalent of a flak cannon. Your Evil Overlord sends up a constant flow of disposable satellites with hundreds or (preferably) thousands of #10 cans full of 1" ball bearings, C4, and a timer. The cans are sent out spherically from the satellite for maximum spread. Like deadly fireworks, they'd send their cargo of ball bearings (quite literally quadrillions of them) into space! They'd cause havoc for as long as you keep sending up satellites — and with each destroyed satellite, you add to the mahem!2





                  1Or, in the case of your Evil Overlord, that one deliberate match thrown by a stupid teenager who thinks the result would be really funny.



                  2And to top it all off, if you're really lucky, you'd have a constant light show in the sky as bazzillions of 1" ball bearings burn up in the atmosphere. Glitter! So much glitter!







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 2 hours ago

























                  answered 3 hours ago









                  JBHJBH

                  51.4k7107249




                  51.4k7107249






















                      Zizzo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                      draft saved

                      draft discarded


















                      Zizzo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                      Zizzo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Zizzo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147375%2fcan-i-render-satellite-deployment-impossible-or-at-least-impractical-by-exploi%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

                      Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

                      Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...