Low-earth orbit satellites threatened by debris from Indian anti-satellite test(breakingdefense.com)
breakingdefense.com
Low-earth orbit satellites threatened by debris from Indian anti-satellite test
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/04/indian-asat-debris-threatens-all-leo-sats/
108 comments
Blind idealism/pacifism will wipe out countries/races/societies.
India didn't choose it's neighbors, but it is what it is. On one side is a country whose identity is defined by anti-India-nism. On the other side is China, need I say more. Moreover, both these neighbors are ganged up by their mutual animosity of India.
India doesn't have any options but to make sure there are deterrents in place. It's a necessity.
India didn't choose it's neighbors, but it is what it is. On one side is a country whose identity is defined by anti-India-nism. On the other side is China, need I say more. Moreover, both these neighbors are ganged up by their mutual animosity of India.
India doesn't have any options but to make sure there are deterrents in place. It's a necessity.
> On one side is a country whose identity is defined by anti-India-nism. On the other side is China, need I say more
Two incredibly low blows, although I suppose this way you've made your isolated point of view very clear.
> Moreover, both these neighbors are ganged up by their mutual animosity of India.
Another way of saying this is they've been successful in maintaining strong ties via diplomacy and trade, to the benefit of their peoples.
> India doesn't have any options but to make sure there are deterrents in place. It's a necessity.
There have always been options; some of which India has rejected themselves, arguably leading to the souring of other international relations. This weapons test will hopefully lead to condemnations and repercussions, direct or indirect.
For example, I would welcome the IRSO being excluded from further policy-making as part of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC).
Two incredibly low blows, although I suppose this way you've made your isolated point of view very clear.
> Moreover, both these neighbors are ganged up by their mutual animosity of India.
Another way of saying this is they've been successful in maintaining strong ties via diplomacy and trade, to the benefit of their peoples.
> India doesn't have any options but to make sure there are deterrents in place. It's a necessity.
There have always been options; some of which India has rejected themselves, arguably leading to the souring of other international relations. This weapons test will hopefully lead to condemnations and repercussions, direct or indirect.
For example, I would welcome the IRSO being excluded from further policy-making as part of the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC).
> Another way of saying this is they've been successful in maintaining strong ties via diplomacy and trade, to the benefit of their peoples.
How is it strong trade ties when one country owes billions of dollars to other?
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pakistan-owe-china-gwa...
How is it strong trade ties when one country owes billions of dollars to other?
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pakistan-owe-china-gwa...
>Another way of saying this is they've been successful in maintaining strong ties via diplomacy and trade, to the benefit of their peoples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–Pakistan_relations#Milit...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China–Pakistan_relations#Milit...
Calling China "China" is an incredibly low blow?
You ignored the rest of the sentence.
If India is rejected so should US, Russia and China.
>Blind idealism/pacifism will wipe out countries/races/societies.
I'm sure Mahatma Gandhi & Co had to listen to such statements as well, glad that they didn't listen; Republic of India might not have been even formed otherwise.
I'm sure Mahatma Gandhi & Co had to listen to such statements as well, glad that they didn't listen; Republic of India might not have been even formed otherwise.
I'm sorry, I'll have to respectfully but strongly disagree if you're going to simplify India's attainment of Independence and grant entire credit to Gandhi & Co.
There were many others who contributed, some more than others, some peacefully some not so. And, let's not forget the WW-2 after which the British were not in a strong enough position to hold on to colonies.
Also, you should ask Dalai Lama how the pacifism worked out for the Tibetans when their country was occupied by China. I surely don't want that for any country, and definitely not for India.
There were many others who contributed, some more than others, some peacefully some not so. And, let's not forget the WW-2 after which the British were not in a strong enough position to hold on to colonies.
Also, you should ask Dalai Lama how the pacifism worked out for the Tibetans when their country was occupied by China. I surely don't want that for any country, and definitely not for India.
Mahatama wasn't an idealist. He supported Britain's pro-peace war and didn't shy away from supporting violence in certain cases.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." - Mahatma Gandhi
Rest assured, Republic of India would've formed one way or the other.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." - Mahatma Gandhi
Rest assured, Republic of India would've formed one way or the other.
This is the same Gandhi who advocated passive resistance in the face of the Holocaust?
Unfortunately, yes.
The Himalayas are a pretty convenient deterrent already.
My standard recommendation when the conversation reaches this point is Tim Marshall’s book: https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Prisoners-of-Geograph...
China could attack India via Myanmar. They already have military bases and naval bases there.
Pakistan does not have even puppet state as hindrance.
Pakistan does not have even puppet state as hindrance.
That invasion route also involves crossing half the mountains in Asia. India and China are where they are for a reason!
Another way of looking at the matter is that the invasion route also involves fighting off Indian Defense forces. Independent countries have military for a reason.
Mountains, army, food hard to eat with chopsticks—there are so many good reasons for China to continue its five-thousand-year-long streak of not attempting an invasion of the Indian subcontinent.
56 year streak to be accurate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan earlier played down the threat the debris might pose to satellites in space and said it was his understanding the debris would eventually burn up in the atmosphere. Asked on Thursday whether the Pentagon stood by Shanahan's earlier assessment, spokesman Charlie Summers said: "Yes."
So it whose wordings are correct ?
Pentagon or NASA ?
The ASAT test was specifically conducted at the orbit of 380Km less than the maximum range of 100Kms because the residues will gradually decompose within weeks and there will be almost none interference to existing or upcoming orbital paths.
The Micro satellite was specifically chosen for this purpose. There is no reason for Nationalism in this.
So it whose wordings are correct ?
Pentagon or NASA ?
The ASAT test was specifically conducted at the orbit of 380Km less than the maximum range of 100Kms because the residues will gradually decompose within weeks and there will be almost none interference to existing or upcoming orbital paths.
The Micro satellite was specifically chosen for this purpose. There is no reason for Nationalism in this.
US DOD was informed prior ASAT test & their non objection stems in we being their strategic partner.
It doesn't mean the number of debris in higher apogee or the their probability to cause harm is false(how ever low the probability might be). Anyone can verify the same, if they have the means.
NASA is answerable to public & that they did. Just like our ISRO is.
I see many, including media confusing between ISRO & DRDO in this context. DRDO was the one which conducted the ASAT test, even if ISRO was involved somehow it shouldn't be advertised; just like how NASA's involvement in any US defence related activity is contained.
The term 'peaceful space exploration' exists for a reason.
It doesn't mean the number of debris in higher apogee or the their probability to cause harm is false(how ever low the probability might be). Anyone can verify the same, if they have the means.
NASA is answerable to public & that they did. Just like our ISRO is.
I see many, including media confusing between ISRO & DRDO in this context. DRDO was the one which conducted the ASAT test, even if ISRO was involved somehow it shouldn't be advertised; just like how NASA's involvement in any US defence related activity is contained.
The term 'peaceful space exploration' exists for a reason.
> Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan
Why would a former Beoing executive, who has had nothing to do with Beoing's space-related ventures in his 30 years there, know anything about orbital mechanics?
> the Pentagon stood by Shanahan's earlier assessment
Why would anyone at the pentagon who wanted to keep their job/position publicly release a conflict with a statement from their upper management?
Why would a former Beoing executive, who has had nothing to do with Beoing's space-related ventures in his 30 years there, know anything about orbital mechanics?
> the Pentagon stood by Shanahan's earlier assessment
Why would anyone at the pentagon who wanted to keep their job/position publicly release a conflict with a statement from their upper management?
> Blind nationalism would deter our progress as a species.
Blind nationalism has fueled our progress as a species.
Blind nationalism has fueled our progress as a species.
Worth noting: India is the fourth(!) country that destroyed a satellite in orbit.
While I would love nothing more but for it be the last country to do so, the precedent was set some time ago. The one that China destroyed in 2007 (or 2008?) was by far the biggest, creating thousands of pieces of debris bigger than a golf ball. 270 pieces (detected so far after India destroyed a satellite) seems pretty insignificant in comparison.
While I would love nothing more but for it be the last country to do so, the precedent was set some time ago. The one that China destroyed in 2007 (or 2008?) was by far the biggest, creating thousands of pieces of debris bigger than a golf ball. 270 pieces (detected so far after India destroyed a satellite) seems pretty insignificant in comparison.
According to Wikipedia, regarding the 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test [0]:
This event was the largest recorded creation of space debris in history with more than 2,000 pieces of trackable size (golf ball size and larger) officially cataloged in the immediate aftermath, and an estimated 150,000 debris particles.
As of October 2016, a total of 3,438 pieces of debris had been detected, with 571 decayed and 2,867 still in orbit nine years after the incident.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
This event was the largest recorded creation of space debris in history with more than 2,000 pieces of trackable size (golf ball size and larger) officially cataloged in the immediate aftermath, and an estimated 150,000 debris particles.
As of October 2016, a total of 3,438 pieces of debris had been detected, with 571 decayed and 2,867 still in orbit nine years after the incident.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_mi...
This smacks of a justification through tu quoque fallacy. Just because other nations destroyed satellites doesn't mean this type of weapons testing should continue. We should criticize nations that did this before AND India.
Polluting LEO to the point where we endanger our ability to get off the earth is extremely myopic.
Polluting LEO to the point where we endanger our ability to get off the earth is extremely myopic.
> Polluting LEO to the point where we endanger our ability to get off the earth is extremely myopic.
Not a notable risk here. All this debris is short-term. If the Chinese satellite had been at the same altitude, all its debris would be long gone by now.
Not a notable risk here. All this debris is short-term. If the Chinese satellite had been at the same altitude, all its debris would be long gone by now.
> We should criticize nations that did this before AND India.
Sure. Just that the "we" cannot be one of the nations that did this before, as is the case here. That's hypocrisy and entitlement.
Sure. Just that the "we" cannot be one of the nations that did this before, as is the case here. That's hypocrisy and entitlement.
By that argument "we" can't criticize and resist nuclear proliferation. I completely reject that assertion.
> the "we" cannot be one of the nations that did this before
Why not? The US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in a war, and we even nuked space in 1962, more or less just to see what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime . I don't see why that disqualifies either me, or the US government, from criticizing these things.
Why not? The US is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in a war, and we even nuked space in 1962, more or less just to see what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime . I don't see why that disqualifies either me, or the US government, from criticizing these things.
Governments change. New one might criticise its own country along with others for doing dumb thing in the past.
Because learning from previous mistakes is somehow a sin?
"If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?"
Just because other people did something stupid doesn't make it not stupid.
Just because other people did something stupid doesn't make it not stupid.
If we want to use bridge jumping in this context, it would be like saying that you can't tell people they shouldnt jump off of bridges if you've jumped off a bridge before. Which is complete nonsense.
This is a bit of a misunderstanding of the problem. Imagine you took a car and you drove in a straight line in any direction in the US where you'd loop back at the end. And now imagine somebody else did the same thing. How likely would you be to collide? You'd have either 0 or 1 collision point in your paths. Usually it'd be 0. And even in the case where you had 1, the chances of you both hitting that point at the exact same time would be infinitesimally low. Now have thousands of cars do the same thing. And all the above still holds true over one 'iteration', or two or three or... However, any two cars that have at least one intersection point will eventually collide (excepting a perfectly synchronized orbit timing) so long as they keep going. It might take a long time, as in potentially thousands of years, but if you get enough cars doing this and you run them long enough - eventually you'll get a pair that will have a collision within some foreseeable time. This is analogous to how things collide in space, except space is much bigger.
In other words Kesseler syndrome does not create some sort of impassable barrier -- in the above analog imagine your risk of getting hit by a car if you stand in one place for 30 seconds - again, basically 0. It just makes collisions, over the longrun, more likely to occur between orbiting bodies. There's absolutely no risk of impairing our ability to get off Earth -- just our ability to circle around it for years in fixed orbits. And in reality, I think it's almost certain we'll eventually see a Kessler syndrome type event. The first thing two capable nations involved in an armed conflict would do is to destroy each others' satellites, resulting in a severe mutual crippling of both offensive and defensive capabilities (as well as civil chaos - imagine if GPS/comms were all taken out tomorrow!) at very low cost. So the only way we do not see a Kessler Syndrome type event is if there's literally never a significant armed conflict between any of US/Russia/China/India, and whatever other future nations develop this technology. The odds of that seem to be pretty much 0.
In other words Kesseler syndrome does not create some sort of impassable barrier -- in the above analog imagine your risk of getting hit by a car if you stand in one place for 30 seconds - again, basically 0. It just makes collisions, over the longrun, more likely to occur between orbiting bodies. There's absolutely no risk of impairing our ability to get off Earth -- just our ability to circle around it for years in fixed orbits. And in reality, I think it's almost certain we'll eventually see a Kessler syndrome type event. The first thing two capable nations involved in an armed conflict would do is to destroy each others' satellites, resulting in a severe mutual crippling of both offensive and defensive capabilities (as well as civil chaos - imagine if GPS/comms were all taken out tomorrow!) at very low cost. So the only way we do not see a Kessler Syndrome type event is if there's literally never a significant armed conflict between any of US/Russia/China/India, and whatever other future nations develop this technology. The odds of that seem to be pretty much 0.
What makes the Kessler scenario worse is that every collision creates dozens or hundreds more cars, increasing the probability of a subsequent collision. Through positive feedback, large classes of orbits become unusable for meaningful mission lifetimes, even if the odds were still low for an individual spacecraft to have a collision in some short time window.
I doubt that “we might be able to shoot down your satellites too” is a good deterrent. I also don’t buy that the US aimed slightly next to the targets and just accidentally destroyed satellites, no way that higher ups would be satisfied by that
I'd call this anything but whataboutism.
The China's example is there because it puts the threat mentioned in the title into a perspective.
We definitely shouldn't destroy any satellites, but we already did. I don't see a reason not to compare them when we discuss how big is the threat.
EDIT: to those who downvote this comment, I'd love an explanation why you think I shouldn't make this comparison. As far as I know, no country destroyed more than one, so how else am I supposed to compare them?
The China's example is there because it puts the threat mentioned in the title into a perspective.
We definitely shouldn't destroy any satellites, but we already did. I don't see a reason not to compare them when we discuss how big is the threat.
EDIT: to those who downvote this comment, I'd love an explanation why you think I shouldn't make this comparison. As far as I know, no country destroyed more than one, so how else am I supposed to compare them?
You can reliably predict a whataboutism argument will be in the top comments on any HN post that follows the format:
[Country] did [bad thing] that affected [everyone/other countries]
It's to the point that there's typically limited discussion about the topic itself and a lot of back and forth whataboutism.
[Country] did [bad thing] that affected [everyone/other countries]
It's to the point that there's typically limited discussion about the topic itself and a lot of back and forth whataboutism.
It is really disappointing.
Also, HN finds usage of “whataboutism” a cliche perpetuated by The Last Week Tonight (John Oliver).
It is whataboutism. I don’t give a shit if it was perpetuated by some TV show. What matters is that HN needs to stop comparisons and distracting the conversation to historical artifacts “oh look, US engaged in Slavery 150 years ago so it is unfair to criticize working conditions at Foxconn”.
We need to stop doing this guys.
Also, HN finds usage of “whataboutism” a cliche perpetuated by The Last Week Tonight (John Oliver).
It is whataboutism. I don’t give a shit if it was perpetuated by some TV show. What matters is that HN needs to stop comparisons and distracting the conversation to historical artifacts “oh look, US engaged in Slavery 150 years ago so it is unfair to criticize working conditions at Foxconn”.
We need to stop doing this guys.
But it is important to look at it. The US in many cases seems to do something that's not good for humanity, but because they did it first they're not held accountable. It's hypocritical.
I’ve come to accept in a pretty short time that when it comes to subject matter experts in narrow fields, especially in IT and mathematics, this site has a lot to offer. Where almost everything else is concerned it’s just Reddit with more passive aggression. The obvious solution is acceptance, and avoidance, rather than hoping that scolding or bikeshedding is going to somehow change matters.
tl;dr HN is great at some things, and for the rest is just as good or bad as the rest of the internet, just with less humor and self-awareness.
tl;dr HN is great at some things, and for the rest is just as good or bad as the rest of the internet, just with less humor and self-awareness.
It's definitely a step above Reddit. The average comment is noticeably more informative. Yes, anything political can get messy and ugly sometimes, but I don't think it is comparable to most of Reddit. Certainly not the default subreddits.
There are subreddits that are higher quality for specific topics, but you have to go hunting to find them.
There are subreddits that are higher quality for specific topics, but you have to go hunting to find them.
Not to forget that the moderation is way better than any average subreddit.
You have to hunt here too, unless you like seeing the same people get into the same fights every week. I’ve found many of the best comments nearer the bottom than the top. Meanwhile Reddits like /history, /compsci, /science, /math, /space, /physics, and /chemistry are all extremely well moderated, informative, and frankly tend to be less of a monoculture. I like HN, but it has some obvious issues that are baked into its dna as a VC-backed board.
Of course if you compare HN to /politics then HN is vastly superior, but then if you compare the average non-technical thread here to anything in /science HN comes off the worse for it. Even putting aside ideological pissing matches bikeshedding, semantic arguments and language wars, you get a lot of weird self-help stuff here that would be funny if people weren’t so desperately sincere about it.
Of course if you compare HN to /politics then HN is vastly superior, but then if you compare the average non-technical thread here to anything in /science HN comes off the worse for it. Even putting aside ideological pissing matches bikeshedding, semantic arguments and language wars, you get a lot of weird self-help stuff here that would be funny if people weren’t so desperately sincere about it.
Yep, for anything non-polarizing or nationalistic, HN offers the most amazing and intellectual discourse.
[deleted]
So because the US engaged in nuclear weapons tests above ground decades ago, it's okay for everybody else to do it too? I'm not sure how the bad behavior of others makes this behavior any less bad. I'm sure China destroying that satellite was widely criticized at the time too, but at some point we need to be able to sit back and say "Well, that's just not acceptable", regardless of who's still doing it or who's done it before. People commit murder everyday, that still doesn't make it okay.
>So because the US engaged in nuclear weapons tests above ground decades ago, it's okay for everybody else to do it too?
Yes, pretty much. If a country doesn't want other countries to do a certain action then they themselves shouldn't do it either. You can't expect to be able to benefit from something and then deny other countries the same, unless you want to be a tyrant.
Yes, pretty much. If a country doesn't want other countries to do a certain action then they themselves shouldn't do it either. You can't expect to be able to benefit from something and then deny other countries the same, unless you want to be a tyrant.
China faced no consequences, US faced no consequences a year after the Chinese one, and I doubt India will face any consequences now.
It's absolutely not okay and no country should do it. Saying "you shouldn't" to everyone else isn't gonna be effective at all when the precedent is set. Singing a treaty (like the nuclear treaties we've signed) might.
It's absolutely not okay and no country should do it. Saying "you shouldn't" to everyone else isn't gonna be effective at all when the precedent is set. Singing a treaty (like the nuclear treaties we've signed) might.
Unfortunately, there’s a clear difference between nation states and us that I don’t feel it’s productive to say, “Well, there’s no treaty, so obviously you and me are okay with it”. My country does plenty of things that are questionable or immoral. I’m still not okay with it. Do the politicians care? Nope. But their doing it despite my objections doesn’t make it any less immoral.
Having a working anti-satellite program is nothing but a benefit to a country, with the possibility to negatively impact anyone else who has stuff in orbit.
There are a very few problems that are comparable. The only ones that I could think of is climate change and nuclear program, because it's theoretically possible to harm humanity as a whole while doing no harm to locals.
Nobody gets killed, there are no consequences that they could even theoretically face, the possible dangers are someone else's, and you publicly display a defense mechanism that only the strongest nations posses.
From the government's perspective, this is nearly perfect. They'll be talked to sternly by some people, so what? That's where treaties can help, because other nations could point to it and say "we've agreed we won't do this because it harms humanity as a whole".
We've "solved" the nuclear crisis by signing treaties, and we can solve this one the same way. We have an international organization that can walk into any space in any country (that signed the treaty) under any suspicion that they might be making a nuclear bomb. Destruction of satellites, in comparison, is much more obvious and easy to spot.
There are a very few problems that are comparable. The only ones that I could think of is climate change and nuclear program, because it's theoretically possible to harm humanity as a whole while doing no harm to locals.
Nobody gets killed, there are no consequences that they could even theoretically face, the possible dangers are someone else's, and you publicly display a defense mechanism that only the strongest nations posses.
From the government's perspective, this is nearly perfect. They'll be talked to sternly by some people, so what? That's where treaties can help, because other nations could point to it and say "we've agreed we won't do this because it harms humanity as a whole".
We've "solved" the nuclear crisis by signing treaties, and we can solve this one the same way. We have an international organization that can walk into any space in any country (that signed the treaty) under any suspicion that they might be making a nuclear bomb. Destruction of satellites, in comparison, is much more obvious and easy to spot.
Would you kindly elaborate on how it’s justifiable to equate murder with a nations deterrance?
It’s because the topic is how you set norms and ethics. If your ethics are relativistic and entirely dependent on how ethical or unethical your peers are, I’d suggest that your ethics aren’t ethics and more like an opportunistic world view devoid of such.
I beg to differ with you.
It’s obvious you are confused between peers and adversaries.
When it comes to national security, the only best ethic is to reciprocate one’s adversaries polities and acts, and prove one is a credible deterrent.
India initiated non-violent political movements, but that does not mean Indians should remain mute spectator while its gigantic neighbour who has made it obvious that it wants to be a world economic-military superpower indulges in arms race.
Calling such deterrence “opportunistic” and “devoid” is a bit too rich.
It’s obvious you are confused between peers and adversaries.
When it comes to national security, the only best ethic is to reciprocate one’s adversaries polities and acts, and prove one is a credible deterrent.
India initiated non-violent political movements, but that does not mean Indians should remain mute spectator while its gigantic neighbour who has made it obvious that it wants to be a world economic-military superpower indulges in arms race.
Calling such deterrence “opportunistic” and “devoid” is a bit too rich.
Ethics is relative. What is your definition of ethics?
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2019/04/
most of the debris will stay on orbit for several weeks to months: by half a year from now, most of it should be gone however, except for a few lingering pieces.
Probability is very low similar to the one in the below article.
Odds of hitting is 1 in 300 Trillion https://www.livescience.com/61955-chinese-space-station-reen...
Probability is very low similar to the one in the below article.
Odds of hitting is 1 in 300 Trillion https://www.livescience.com/61955-chinese-space-station-reen...
Aside: Any idea what that Latin motto is on this blog?
TOTUS VESTRI ARCANA NOCTI NOBIS EST
Google translate refused.
TOTUS VESTRI ARCANA NOCTI NOBIS EST
Google translate refused.
Don't know latin in any way shape or form. Just was curious and used this like a small puzzle. Added a bit more context to words that weren't very self explanatory.
If someone knows any better I would love to be corrected.
[0] - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nocti- [1] - https://study.com/academy/answer/what-does-est-mean-in-latin...
TOTUS - all/whole
VESTRI - your
ARCANA - secrets
NOCTI - night? - 'used in formation of compound words' [0]
NOBIS - us/we
EST - to be - "can be translated as 'it is,' 'he/she is,' or simply 'is.' It is the third person singular of the present tense of the verb 'to be'" [1]
If someone knows any better I would love to be corrected.
[0] - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nocti- [1] - https://study.com/academy/answer/what-does-est-mean-in-latin...
[Edited with another mistake]
I suspect it uses the wrong case (declension) for some of those words and I'm not sure if arcana can be used as a noun--I've forgotten some of my Latin. My best guesses:
What was intended: "all the secrets of your night are ours"
It actually says something closer to: "all the secrets of your night are to us"
It should use noster, as opposed to nos (nobis in the dative case), if I understand the intended meaning correctly.
The reason I suspect wrong case is that nobis is in the dative case whereas I think it should be a nominative in order to agree with the subject (so "noster" in order to agree with totus).
I suspect it uses the wrong case (declension) for some of those words and I'm not sure if arcana can be used as a noun--I've forgotten some of my Latin. My best guesses:
What was intended: "all the secrets of your night are ours"
It actually says something closer to: "all the secrets of your night are to us"
It should use noster, as opposed to nos (nobis in the dative case), if I understand the intended meaning correctly.
The reason I suspect wrong case is that nobis is in the dative case whereas I think it should be a nominative in order to agree with the subject (so "noster" in order to agree with totus).
All your bases are belong to us
Why are you linking to a completely unrelated article about the chances of a human being hit by debris from a Chinese space station falling out of orbit in this discussion?
The original article says it is hard to estimate the increased risk due to this incident but says one NASA official estimates an increased chance of the ISS needing to maneuver to avoid debris from 20% to 30%, although that estimate should really be given with an associated time period to be meaningful.
The original article says it is hard to estimate the increased risk due to this incident but says one NASA official estimates an increased chance of the ISS needing to maneuver to avoid debris from 20% to 30%, although that estimate should really be given with an associated time period to be meaningful.
Pentagon says debris from India’s ASAT expected to burn up in atmosphere [0]:
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mission-shakti-pentago...
https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/mission-shakti-pentago...
Just wait until an armed conflict. China/Russia/US/India will take about 20 minutes to blast every satellite in the sky. Then space will be inaccessible for decades at least.
One doesn't even need to blow them up. An EMP from a thermonuclear blast would probably fry ther circuitry anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
And that's how we close off our only window to expand beyond this planet as a species.
And that's how we close off our only window to expand beyond this planet as a species.
Space will be accessible, just not parking in low earth orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Implications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Implications
Oh just wait till the spaceX internet satellites are setup, and the amazon internet satellites. Low earth orbit is about to be full, debris up there is going to be super dangerous
[deleted]
Not necessarily.
To a large extent, LEO aggression can be modeled even more dissuasively (collapsing into MAD) via game theory.
If I blow up your satellites, and I don't know where the pieces are liable to go, then I imperil my own satellites in a similar orbit.
Ergo, if I have space assets and ASAT capability, the strictly dominating strategy is to publicly declare I will only deploy my ASAT weapons in defense or if strategic red lines are breached (e.g. territorial invasion).
Consequently, it's in the US's best interests for other countries with ASAT capabilities to increase their satellite capabilities.
To a large extent, LEO aggression can be modeled even more dissuasively (collapsing into MAD) via game theory.
If I blow up your satellites, and I don't know where the pieces are liable to go, then I imperil my own satellites in a similar orbit.
Ergo, if I have space assets and ASAT capability, the strictly dominating strategy is to publicly declare I will only deploy my ASAT weapons in defense or if strategic red lines are breached (e.g. territorial invasion).
Consequently, it's in the US's best interests for other countries with ASAT capabilities to increase their satellite capabilities.
Yeah but if a country with ASAT was going to be bombed, do you think they would give the enemy the benefit of GPS or communications satellites?
"Bombed" is rather nebulous. Are you referring to a strategic bombing campaign or a tactical strike?
If the latter, then yes. I believe they, the US, and most other countries in the world would rather suffer a tactical strike than crack the lid on indiscriminate ASAT usage.
If the latter, then yes. I believe they, the US, and most other countries in the world would rather suffer a tactical strike than crack the lid on indiscriminate ASAT usage.
If the India was expecting a bombing of Delhi from Chinese aircraft.
Then sure. But that's what game theory is about.
India announces that if China bombs Delhi, all options are on the table.
China mulls over the potential ASAT repercussions and decides the strike isn't worth it.
That's the inherent safety of MAD. It requires no trust in your counterparty -- only convincing them that you will extract a heavy toll if (and only if!) they take a specific action.
India announces that if China bombs Delhi, all options are on the table.
China mulls over the potential ASAT repercussions and decides the strike isn't worth it.
That's the inherent safety of MAD. It requires no trust in your counterparty -- only convincing them that you will extract a heavy toll if (and only if!) they take a specific action.
If a rogue nation develops such missile technology then they could cause incredible disruption to the rest of the world. E.g. think of the DPRK being able to knock out GPS satellites - this missile tech could bring is western currency for the DPRK if the like of al-Quieda or the Taleban were willing to pay millions of $$$ to them for downing US military sats.
GPS satellites aren't in low earth orbit, though. I'd imagine taking out something 12,000 miles up is going to remain out of reach for countries like the DPRK.
There's some fear mongering over China related to this[1], but I don't think the capability has ever been demonstrated because of the implications.
[1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-will-soon-be-ab...
Edit: I posted incorrect information. GPS satellites orbit at ~12,000 miles, not GSO at 22,000.
There's some fear mongering over China related to this[1], but I don't think the capability has ever been demonstrated because of the implications.
[1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/china-will-soon-be-ab...
Edit: I posted incorrect information. GPS satellites orbit at ~12,000 miles, not GSO at 22,000.
Let's all reminisce about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford @ http://stuffin.space/?intldes=1963-014AA&search=westford and hope for some really
magic fairy dust sprinkling brighter through the light shine of our frozen cityscape hells.
Be cautious of the stupid.
That's all.
http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/
http://www.zoon.cc/stupid/
Anyone who works in space here have any ideas on how feasible they reckon this Raytheon Space Debris Elimination (SpaDE) technique is?
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_20...
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_20...
Maybe the illustrious members of HN should stick to their strengths and come up with a technological solution to the following two:
- how can a nation achieve equivalent ability as this without actually destroying a satellite
- how can such debris be rendered harmless
What I don't get is that not only the surface in question is enormous (even more vast than the oceans), but also in 3d (think tens of thousands of layers of ocean surface). How can a few dozen 10cm debris be such a big deal? They may be deadly if a collision occur but how likely is such a collision?
So a volume?
These are several hundred objects travelling with enough momentum to do catastrophic damage to launch vehicles and other orbiting equipment. They’re not icebergs floating on the ocean, they’re bullets whizzing through that volume at incredible velocities.
Would you get on a plane if every airport runway doubled as an active shooting range?
These are several hundred objects travelling with enough momentum to do catastrophic damage to launch vehicles and other orbiting equipment. They’re not icebergs floating on the ocean, they’re bullets whizzing through that volume at incredible velocities.
Would you get on a plane if every airport runway doubled as an active shooting range?
A runway is a tiny place. My point is that we are talking about an immense amount of space.
Through which we have to send all our launches. The debris field is growing and this and other tests are contributing to it. The debris isn’t likely to be homogeneous over this volume either.
Our launch sites are tiny spaces designed to reduce launch cost by getting a boost from the earths rotation or to select particular orbits. That these narrow corridors may be polluted with debris from satellites launched into very similar orbits is frightening in the extreme.
Our launch sites are tiny spaces designed to reduce launch cost by getting a boost from the earths rotation or to select particular orbits. That these narrow corridors may be polluted with debris from satellites launched into very similar orbits is frightening in the extreme.
One aspect you miss in your analogy is that when you include the time dimension, the probability of a collision is proportional to swept volume (and thus speed), rather than static volume. So while the space is really large, really fast objects can have substantially large swept volumes.
After conducting such tests what was India’s plan to remove such debris? Just because “they did it why can’t we do it?” rationale is not to support this act. They should be hold accountable.
“They should be held accountable “.
Yeah, India should be held accountable to the same degree that others 3 were held to.
Yeah, India should be held accountable to the same degree that others 3 were held to.
This is plastic in the ocean for earth's orbit. We'll never be able to remove the debris. It's only a small amount now, but give it a few hundred years...
> but give it a few hundred years...
A few hundred years is how long things stay on those orbits.
A few hundred years is how long things stay on those orbits.
Replace 'years' with 'days' for this one.
Well, replace on a orbit with on any orbit on my comment, that's closer to what I meant.
I was also talking about normal orbits, not the highly excentric stuff you get after an explosion. Since the GP was about long term concerns, that's more fitting. Yes, the debris of this one explosion will be almost all (or maybe literally all) gone in a month.
And yes, hundreds of years is still an overstatement. But decades would be an understatement for many of the objects we put into LEO.
From severity to probability, nearly everything on news or discussion sites about Kessler Syndrome seems to be a severe misconception.
I was also talking about normal orbits, not the highly excentric stuff you get after an explosion. Since the GP was about long term concerns, that's more fitting. Yes, the debris of this one explosion will be almost all (or maybe literally all) gone in a month.
And yes, hundreds of years is still an overstatement. But decades would be an understatement for many of the objects we put into LEO.
From severity to probability, nearly everything on news or discussion sites about Kessler Syndrome seems to be a severe misconception.
Good attempt for discrediting a successful mission. The agressive title couldn't be substantiated in entire article, ...and what about those 3 nations that caused debris before, if so!
"and what about those 3 nations that caused debris before, if so!"
They get no respect here for that either.
They get no respect here for that either.
Ever since NASA chief's comment, the arguments have been very polarised. What NASA said is scientifically accurate & being one of the major stake holder in ISS it has a duty to tell its opinion. There are people in International Space Station, don't forget that their family on earth would want an answer from NASA for such incidents.
The issue in the country seems to be, not what NASA said; but why did it say that!
Yes, US has conducted similar tests & its debris went further in apogee as well & since it didn't change orbit[second application of delta-v is required to do that]; it decayed eventually. Same will happen with the debris we caused as there is not much change in perigee.
If ASATs renew new arms race across the planet & everyone starts blowing satellites, it's not good for the humanity.
If Israel can enforce deterrence as a nuclear power without conducting or acknowledging major nuclear tests, India can project space warfare ready without indulging in such activities; after all there was no doubt about our rocket engineering capabilities to start with.
Edit : Typo