If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(From Quarks to Quasars)   "Imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit, which creates more debris and hits more objects and....you get the picture"   (fromquarkstoquasars.com) divider line 83
    More: Scary, space junk, communication satellites, orbits, space systems, EPFL, Lausanne, ETH Zurich  
•       •       •

3674 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 Dec 2013 at 11:45 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-09 11:50:18 AM
What about the twinkie?
 
2013-12-09 11:50:24 AM
Kessler Syndrome!  (thanks Planetes for educating me of this years ago)
 
2013-12-09 11:50:36 AM
 
2013-12-09 11:52:28 AM
So, the movie Gravity, but in real life.

/Boring movie, IMO
 
2013-12-09 11:52:55 AM
Imagine the odds that something the size of a screw will impact anything else in orbit...
 
2013-12-09 11:54:01 AM
Gunnery Chief: This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3 percent of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kilotomb bomb. That is three times the yield of the city buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth.That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-biatch in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's First Law?

Recruit: Sir! A object in motion stays in motion, sir!

Gunnery Chief: No credit for partial answers, maggot!

Recruit: Sir! Unless acted on by an outside force, sir!

Gunnery Chief: Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire a husk of metal, it keeps going until it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years.
If you pull the trigger on this, you're ruining someone's day somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a **** firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it!" This is a weapon of mass destruction. You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!

Recruit: Sir, yes sir!"

/somewhat relavent
//obviously not obscure
 
2013-12-09 11:56:01 AM

Dingleberry Dickwad: /somewhat relavent


Isn't sci-fi fun when you're 13?
 
2013-12-09 11:59:31 AM
This reminds me of something the Submarine Force refers to as the 'Big Ocean, Small Boat' theory.  In effect, it seems impossible that of all the ocean, two submarines would happen to be in the exact same place at the exact same depth at the exact same time.  What people don't think about is that in the ocean, like in orbit, there are places where it makes sense to be.  Communication satellites and such HAVE to be in a certain place to work.  Same thing with submarines.  The realities of operations force you into close proximity, with big empty areas that are empty because nobody has any reason to be there. In reality, they say the odds of a collision are something along the lines of three orders of magnitude higher than pure chance averaged over all of the available area.
 
2013-12-09 12:01:48 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Dingleberry Dickwad: /somewhat relavent

Isn't sci-fi fun when you're 13?


Is sci-fi worse than actual space exploration or vice versa.  Should we retask all of the money we are wasting on Heinlein, Aasimov, et al.m,  to a more purposeful task like statistics textbooks?
 
2013-12-09 12:02:42 PM
...currently we are tracking over 300,000 pieces of orbital debris that are 1 centimeter or larger.

OK, that's a lot of debris, but what amazes me is that we are tracking that many objects that are THAT small...
 
2013-12-09 12:08:32 PM
amcentralblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-09 12:13:15 PM
FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.
 
2013-12-09 12:14:32 PM

RangerTaylor: Is sci-fi worse than actual space exploration or vice versa.


Space exploration? That's a loaded word. We have pictures from 13 billion light years away, yet some people think you need to walk there for it to be exploring.

Sci-fi isn't "worse" than anything, but thinking it's some sort of guide to reality is ... naive at best. It's just Harlequin romances for boy nerds. Full of overblown imagery, heroic nonsense and completely unrealistic portrayals of the sheer size and emptiness of space.

Niven's Protector at least had slower than light travel taking 36000 years between worlds, but even that required several magical materials and technologies.

Surool: [amcentralblog.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]


You'd think they'd use at least Pozidriv in space, not crappy camming-out Philips. That's a low-cost screw in any case, what's it doing in space?
 
2013-12-09 12:21:13 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: RangerTaylor: Is sci-fi worse than actual space exploration or vice versa.

Space exploration? That's a loaded word. We have pictures from 13 billion light years away, yet some people think you need to walk there for it to be exploring.

Sci-fi isn't "worse" than anything, but thinking it's some sort of guide to reality is ... naive at best. It's just Harlequin romances for boy nerds. Full of overblown imagery, heroic nonsense and completely unrealistic portrayals of the sheer size and emptiness of space.

Niven's Protector at least had slower than light travel taking 36000 years between worlds, but even that required several magical materials and technologies.

Surool: [amcentralblog.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]

You'd think they'd use at least Pozidriv in space, not crappy camming-out Philips. That's a low-cost screw in any case, what's it doing in space?


Magical advances similar to a hand-held device that allows you to access an appreciable fraction of the entire knowledge of the human race?  Without even plugging into a wall?

Do you have issues with fantasy as well?  Is using a fantastic setting as way to explore the intricacies of human interaction by divorcing it from our historically-shaded worldview not worthwhile?
 
2013-12-09 12:24:38 PM

PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.


Up in geostationary orbit, that would be mostly true. Elsewhere, different satellites, spacecraft, and bits thereof are traveling in a wide variety of orbits.
 
2013-12-09 12:25:00 PM
I get Kessler Syndrome every Saturday night, from my Manhattans.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-12-09 12:26:26 PM
I read that as imagine screwing at 20,000 mph...it led to some disappointment after reading the article.
 
2013-12-09 12:29:56 PM

RangerTaylor: Do you have issues with fantasy as well?


He was a tender 9 when his application for Space Camp was turned down... the scars run deep.
 
2013-12-09 12:30:59 PM
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.
George Bernard Shaw

// stop feeding the life extension nutter
 
2013-12-09 12:33:11 PM

RangerTaylor: Quantum Apostrophe: RangerTaylor: Is sci-fi worse than actual space exploration or vice versa.

Space exploration? That's a loaded word. We have pictures from 13 billion light years away, yet some people think you need to walk there for it to be exploring.

Sci-fi isn't "worse" than anything, but thinking it's some sort of guide to reality is ... naive at best. It's just Harlequin romances for boy nerds. Full of overblown imagery, heroic nonsense and completely unrealistic portrayals of the sheer size and emptiness of space.

Niven's Protector at least had slower than light travel taking 36000 years between worlds, but even that required several magical materials and technologies.

Surool: [amcentralblog.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]

You'd think they'd use at least Pozidriv in space, not crappy camming-out Philips. That's a low-cost screw in any case, what's it doing in space?

Magical advances similar to a hand-held device that allows you to access an appreciable fraction of the entire knowledge of the human race?  Without even plugging into a wall?

Do you have issues with fantasy as well?  Is using a fantastic setting as way to explore the intricacies of human interaction by divorcing it from our historically-shaded worldview not worthwhile?


I'm curious as to what he actually does all day.  That is, outside of shiatting in just about every Geek thread he can he his hands on, which is really the saddest of threadshiatting.
 
2013-12-09 12:35:33 PM
Yeah, I understand I am feeding the nutter, but it's like talking to a stripper, I want to find out what led him to his lofty station in life.
 
2013-12-09 12:45:50 PM
Thanks a farking lot Subby...I'm now blind because of that link.  And you probably gave Drew an idea for the background color of the next Fark format change.
 
2013-12-09 12:48:08 PM

PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.


Not necessarily. For starters, they could be traveling in the exact same orbit, but in the opposite direction. All the math works out the same, except that you get a closing speed of 40,000 mph. That would be unusual -- you generally launch into an orbit that lets you take advantage of the Earth's spin -- but not impossible. A more likely scenario is that one object was in something closer to a polar orbit, and the other something closer to equatorial.

In geosynch orbit, things in general will have low relative velocities -- the whole point of being up there is to stay "over" one point on the equator, and so everything's moving with approximately the same velocity. And there's less stuff up there as well, because it's harder/more expensive to get to.

Putting a big sandbag into a retrograde geosynchronous orbit (same altitude/period, opposite direction) and then popping it would be a terrible thing to do to a civilization.
 
2013-12-09 12:57:06 PM

PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.


It's about relative velocities and orbital inclinations. If you are on the freeway going at 60mph and another car pulls alongside you, you can reach out the window and shake the hand of the passenger next to you even though your velocity is high because your relative velocity is near zero.

However, if that car was coming at you at a perpendicular angle, even though it is the same absolute speed, your relative velocities are all out of whack and it's going to be a giant fireball.

In Earth orbit, objects are not only going at different speeds depending on their altitude, but also different directions based on their orbital inclination. One orbit may be perfectly equatorial and another at a 50 degree inclination. Given the vast array of launches over the years the number of varied orbits with debris in them is astounding. That's the danger.
 
2013-12-09 12:58:42 PM
Quantum Apostrophe:  That's a low-cost screw in any case, what's it doing in space?

Because in the time-frame of the Planetes universe, space travel is low-cost. The very first scene had a passenger craft being destroyed by a Gravity-esque incident.
 
2013-12-09 01:03:03 PM
www.icheg.org
 
2013-12-09 01:06:34 PM
We need a hero.
We need a cleaner.
We need... SPACE ROOMBA
 
2013-12-09 01:29:12 PM
A butterfly flaps its wings in geosynchronous orbit...
 
2013-12-09 01:49:25 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: RangerTaylor: Is sci-fi worse than actual space exploration or vice versa.

Space exploration? That's a loaded word. We have pictures from 13 billion light years away, yet some people think you need to walk there for it to be exploring.

Sci-fi isn't "worse" than anything, but thinking it's some sort of guide to reality is ... naive at best. It's just Harlequin romances for boy nerds. Full of overblown imagery, heroic nonsense and completely unrealistic portrayals of the sheer size and emptiness of space.

Niven's Protector at least had slower than light travel taking 36000 years between worlds, but even that required several magical materials and technologies.

Surool: [amcentralblog.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]

You'd think they'd use at least Pozidriv in space, not crappy camming-out Philips. That's a low-cost screw in any case, what's it doing in space?


Anything is better than clutch head
 
2013-12-09 01:53:19 PM

Millennium: We need a hero.
We need a cleaner.
We need... SPACE ROOMBA


It may not be the hero we want, but it's the hero we need.
 
2013-12-09 01:53:46 PM
 
2013-12-09 01:54:29 PM

LowbrowDeluxe: What about the twinkie?


somebody tell him about the twinkie.
 
2013-12-09 01:58:22 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Gunnery Chief: This, recruits, is a 20-kilo ferrous slug. Feel the weight. Every five seconds, the main gun of an Everest-class dreadnought accelerates one to 1.3 percent of light speed. It impacts with the force of a 38-kilotomb bomb. That is three times the yield of the city buster dropped on Hiroshima back on Earth.That means Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son-of-a-biatch in space. Now! Serviceman Burnside! What is Newton's First Law?

Recruit: Sir! A object in motion stays in motion, sir!

Gunnery Chief: No credit for partial answers, maggot!

Recruit: Sir! Unless acted on by an outside force, sir!

Gunnery Chief: Damn straight! I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire a husk of metal, it keeps going until it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years.
If you pull the trigger on this, you're ruining someone's day somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a **** firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not "eyeball it!" This is a weapon of mass destruction. You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!

Recruit: Sir, yes sir!"

/somewhat relavent
//obviously not obscure


Mass effect 3 had it's moments. that was one of them.

/the opposite clone dlc was fun, too
 
2013-12-09 02:53:53 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Space exploration? That's a loaded word. We have pictures from 13 billion light years away, yet some people think you need to walk there for it to be exploring.

Sci-fi isn't "worse" than anything, but thinking it's some sort of guide to reality is ... naive at best. It's just Harlequin romances for boy nerds. Full of overblown imagery, heroic nonsense and completely unrealistic portrayals of the sheer size and emptiness of space.

Niven's Protector at least had slower than light travel taking 36000 years between worlds, but even that required several magical materials and technologies.


TechnoBevets, still farking that 3D-printed space chicken......
 
2013-12-09 02:54:42 PM

RangerTaylor: Magical advances similar to a hand-held device that allows you to access an appreciable fraction of the entire knowledge of the human race? Without even plugging into a wall?


Information transfer. Math. Weightless, massless, low energy, low stress on materials. Yes. We know how to wiggle photons in interesting ways.

What does this have to do with nuts and bolts engineering such as rockets, life support systems, thrust, materials, etc?

How fast was a 747 in 1969? What was it made of? What theories were behind its engines?

Contrast and compare with 2013.

We hit some limits very fast, very early. Information processing had many MANY orders of magnitude to go "down" in scale because flipping one bit requires so little energy.

It just took time for our manufacturing technology to scale down to match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NGFhc8R_uO4

A bit used to be stored in a vacuum-tube flip-flop circuit. That's two triodes and biasing components and filaments. Call it 5 watts of power PER BIT.

40 watts for a BYTE. 40KW, or a house, for a kilobyte of memory.

Yet, bit flipping requires only 10 ^-21 watts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle

We had about 24 orders of magnitude DOWN to play with for our technology to catch up.

There were hundreds of different technologies along the decades to store and process bits.

But it always takes the same amount of energy to move the same mass.

How many different ways are there to produce thrust? Brayton cycle, Carnot cycle, turbines and pistons and rockets. What else?

There are only 92 stable elements to play with on the Periodic Table.

Unless you plan on sending Smurfs or frozen fertilized eggs on generation ships, no one's going anywhere.

And even that requires some fairly magical technology like 100% reliable self-repairing and maintaining machinery and a power source to match.

No one's going anywhere. Guaranteed. It's not even a debate.

RangerTaylor: Do you have issues with fantasy as well?


No one seems to take it as seriously. I don't see fantasy people earnestly saying we'll all fly on dragons and use magic spells to make food. They seem to know it's fantasy.

RangerTaylor: Is using a fantastic setting as way to explore the intricacies of human interaction by divorcing it from our historically-shaded worldview not worthwhile?


It's fun. But when you think we'll ACTUALLY have colonies on Mars or asteroid mines because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT'S JUST A FANTASTIC SETTING, that's a problem!
 
2013-12-09 03:18:03 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Surool: [amcentralblog.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]

You'd think they'd use at least Pozidriv in space, not crappy camming-out Philips. That's a low-cost screw in any case, what's it doing in space?


The only reason I posted this image is that it comes from the anime series Planetes. The series is about... wait for it... cleaning up this exact type of orbital debris. The show opens with a shuttle full of people being killed by a single screw traveling at thousands of miles per hour.
 
2013-12-09 03:24:23 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: RangerTaylor: Magical advances similar to a hand-held device that allows you to access an appreciable fraction of the entire knowledge of the human race? Without even plugging into a wall?

Information transfer. Math. Weightless, massless, low energy, low stress on materials. Yes. We know how to wiggle photons in interesting ways.

What does this have to do with nuts and bolts engineering such as rockets, life support systems, thrust, materials, etc?

How fast was a 747 in 1969? What was it made of? What theories were behind its engines?

Contrast and compare with 2013.

We hit some limits very fast, very early. Information processing had many MANY orders of magnitude to go "down" in scale because flipping one bit requires so little energy.

It just took time for our manufacturing technology to scale down to match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NGFhc8R_uO4

A bit used to be stored in a vacuum-tube flip-flop circuit. That's two triodes and biasing components and filaments. Call it 5 watts of power PER BIT.

40 watts for a BYTE. 40KW, or a house, for a kilobyte of memory.

Yet, bit flipping requires only 10 ^-21 watts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle

We had about 24 orders of magnitude DOWN to play with for our technology to catch up.

There were hundreds of different technologies along the decades to store and process bits.

But it always takes the same amount of energy to move the same mass.

How many different ways are there to produce thrust? Brayton cycle, Carnot cycle, turbines and pistons and rockets. What else?

There are only 92 stable elements to play with on the Periodic Table.

Unless you plan on sending Smurfs or frozen fertilized eggs on generation ships, no one's going anywhere.

And even that requires some fairly magical technology like 100% reliable self-repairing and maintaining machinery and a power source to match.

No one's going anywhere. Guaranteed. It's not even a debate.

RangerTaylor: Do you hav ...


Honestly man, I have no idea what spaceflight ever did to you to fill you with such rage.  Of all things to get pissed off about, I just don't get it.
 
2013-12-09 03:28:44 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: RangerTaylor: Magical advances similar to a hand-held device that allows you to access an appreciable fraction of the entire knowledge of the human race? Without even plugging into a wall?

.....

How many different ways are there to produce thrust? Brayton cycle, Carnot cycle, turbines and pistons and rockets. What else?

There are only 92 stable elements to play with on the Periodic Table.

Unless you plan on sending Smurfs or frozen fertilized eggs on generation ships, no one's going anywhere.

And even that requires some fairly magical technology like 100% reliable self-repairing and maintaining machinery and a power source to match.

No one's going anywhere. Guaranteed. It's not even a debate.


And because humanity doesn't know how to do this today, it will never ever know how to in the future. There will never be leaps and bounds or just slight progress in human technology or our understanding of the universe and the laws of physics. We know exactly where our limits lie and no one is ever going to bother pushing those limits. It's common knowledge exactly what society, technology and civilization will look like in 10, 100 or 1000 years. Just like a century ago they perfectly predicted what the modern ere would look like. Yep, no debate what so ever. Guaranteed.
 
2013-12-09 03:49:13 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: How fast was a 747 in 1969


DRINK!!
 
2013-12-09 03:57:04 PM

RangerTaylor: Honestly man, I have no idea what spaceflight ever did to you to fill you with such rage. Of all things to get pissed off about, I just don't get it.


It's the people that think we'll colonize the universe. Is this distinction this difficult to understand?

I'm pissed off because, as you yourself noted, we live in an era of instant information access and 5 minutes of that time would show what I showed you. Well, plus the hour of the youtube video.

Please watch it.

We have many problems to solve right here and brains being distracted by what amounts to a religion is a waste.

Gaddiel: And because humanity doesn't know how to do this today, it will never ever know how to in the future


Please read what I wrote again.

We already know it'll never happen.

Forget it, find some other religion to believe in. At this point, genetically engineering unicorns and actual fire-breathing dragons are more likely.

Surool: Quantum Apostrophe: Surool: [amcentralblog.files.wordpress.com image 850x637]

You'd think they'd use at least Pozidriv in space, not crappy camming-out Philips. That's a low-cost screw in any case, what's it doing in space?

The only reason I posted this image is that it comes from the anime series Planetes. The series is about... wait for it... cleaning up this exact type of orbital debris. The show opens with a shuttle full of people being killed by a single screw traveling at thousands of miles per hour.


Obviously that screw came from a cost-reduced thingy made by the lowest bidder.  Non ferrous too? I'd have used a magnet myself.

But I'm just a Luddite. But a Luddite that would use something better than a 10-32 screw in Philips for something that's supposed to go in space.
 
2013-12-09 04:00:51 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: How fast was a 747 in 1969?


Why not really hammer home the point with "How round was the wheel 2000 years ago compared to now and by the way you're all nancy boys".
 
2013-12-09 04:06:48 PM

cranked: Quantum Apostrophe: How fast was a 747 in 1969?

Why not really hammer home the point with "How round was the wheel 2000 years ago compared to now and by the way you're all nancy boys".


Is that a 3D printed hammer?
 
2013-12-09 04:08:06 PM

PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.


Shhhh, talking about orbital frames will just confuse the masses. For the rest of us, it's the intercept velocities that count, although the intersecting orbits are the real gold. Two orbits intersect at 10 degrees, colliding debris should come out of the impact with diminished velocity and fall out of orbit.
 
2013-12-09 04:09:14 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: It's the people that think we'll colonize the universe.


We're in a thread about debris that is actually in orbit around our actual planet, put there by actual people using actual science.  The only one going on about 'colonizing the universe', as usual, is you.  While you occasionally make interesting (and obvious points) you immediately follow up with a straw man larger than can reasonably be created with any number of 3D printers and then thrash the hell out of it, all the while explaining to everyone else how stupid they sound.
 
2013-12-09 04:10:29 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Is that a 3D printed hammer?


Drink!
 
2013-12-09 04:10:58 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Is that a 3D printed hammer?


Yes it is - please use it to hammer that misplaced parenthesis in my previous post over to the correct place.
 
2013-12-09 04:14:14 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Gaddiel: And because humanity doesn't know how to do this today, it will never ever know how to in the future

Please read what I wrote again.

We already know it'll never happen.

Forget it, find some other religion to believe in. At this point, genetically engineering unicorns and actual fire-breathing dragons are more likely.


What, am I not agreeing with you? Modern science knows everything. We have a full and complete understanding of the universe and nothing will ever change! Previously held notions about physics have never been disproved or found to be false or incomplete. Never ever will someone figure out new methods of energy storage, energy generation, or locomotion, or how to manipulate relativity or some other ridiculous bit of science fiction nonsense. It's fixed, final, finito, fait. Right?
 
2013-12-09 04:16:39 PM

Gaddiel: Quantum Apostrophe: Gaddiel: And because humanity doesn't know how to do this today, it will never ever know how to in the future

Please read what I wrote again.

We already know it'll never happen.

Forget it, find some other religion to believe in. At this point, genetically engineering unicorns and actual fire-breathing dragons are more likely.

What, am I not agreeing with you? Modern science knows everything. We have a full and complete understanding of the universe and nothing will ever change! Previously held notions about physics have never been disproved or found to be false or incomplete. Never ever will someone figure out new methods of energy storage, energy generation, or locomotion, or how to manipulate relativity or some other ridiculous bit of science fiction nonsense. It's fixed, final, finito, fait. Right?


Forget it, he's rolling.
 
2013-12-09 04:16:52 PM

PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.


No, because orbits do not all have the same direction and profile.  An elliptical orbit between 10k and 100k is going to have way more speed than the object steady at 10k.
 
2013-12-09 04:18:02 PM

Chalji: PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.

It's about relative velocities and orbital inclinations. If you are on the freeway going at 60mph and another car pulls alongside you, you can reach out the window and shake the hand of the passenger next to you even though your velocity is high because your relative velocity is near zero.

However, if that car was coming at you at a perpendicular angle, even though it is the same absolute speed, your relative velocities are all out of whack and it's going to be a giant fireball.

In Earth orbit, objects are not only going at different speeds depending on their altitude, but also different directions based on their orbital inclination. One orbit may be perfectly equatorial and another at a 50 degree inclination. Given the vast array of launches over the years the number of varied orbits with debris in them is astounding. That's the danger.


What he said. Additionally, when objects start moving at around 20k mph, a couple hundred miles per hour off is a real possibility. Even if objects were travelling within 1% of 20k mph, that is still a relative speed of 200 mph which can certainly ruin your day in space if you get hit by something going that fast.
 
2013-12-09 04:19:36 PM

CSM101: Mass effect 3 had it's moments. that was one of them.

/the opposite clone dlc was fun, too


That was ME2, not ME3.

Always thought it was funny that the Gunnery Chief was waving around the "20-kilo" projectile like it was a toy (the game even used the disk grenade prop!). Just how strong was the dude supposed to be, that he could toss around a 50lb object one-handed and not strain himself? Nevermind that it's a 50lb iron object the size of a drink coaster. What the hell were they doing to be able to compress iron to 5 times the density of lead?!
 
2013-12-09 04:20:46 PM

cranked: Quantum Apostrophe: It's the people that think we'll colonize the universe.

We're in a thread about debris that is actually in orbit around our actual planet, put there by actual people using actual science.  The only one going on about 'colonizing the universe', as usual, is you.  While you occasionally make interesting (and obvious points) you immediately follow up with a straw man larger than can reasonably be created with any number of 3D printers and then thrash the hell out of it, all the while explaining to everyone else how stupid they sound.


Oh come on. You know as well as I do that about a half dozen Farkers pulled down their pants at "orbit", and 5 of those came at "objects", probably while still bent over from taking off their pants.

Debris in orbit around our planet at about 0.1 radii. Yippee yay, let me pack my suitcase for Mars.

And if my points were so obvious, you'd think they'd start sinking in by now.

Jeez, just the other day someone told me in all seriousness we aren't really exploring space because we aren't walking on the Moon.

This delusion about people in space is powerful stuff.

It fascinates me to no end.

But not as much as people with a lifespan measured in a handful of decades babbling on and on about the whole species and its future in space.... Usually by people so warped, depressed, misanthropic, self-loathing and un self-aware that they see no problem about not caring about the people alive today.

Sickness.
 
2013-12-09 04:23:21 PM
Dingleberry Dickwad:

Forget it, he's rolling.

You assume that I am not enjoying this.
 
2013-12-09 04:25:52 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: caring about the people alive today.


Is there a reason we should?
 
2013-12-09 04:42:10 PM
How is it that Kerbin can keep launching stuff with all that orbiting debris?
 
2013-12-09 04:47:26 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Oh come on. You know as well as I do that about a half dozen Farkers pulled down their pants at "orbit", and 5 of those came at "objects", probably while still bent over from taking off their pants.

Debris in orbit around our planet at about 0.1 radii. Yippee yay, let me pack my suitcase for Mars.


^- Case in point.

And if my points were so obvious, you'd think they'd start sinking in by now.

Points about practical limits to energy, practical limits to current technology, yada yada are obvious and well understood concepts. When you hurdle past those to "science is at a dead end, this is it" you seem to feel that you're on the same solid ground. Your reaction to people that disagree with that last premise is what gets you the nick "TechnoBevets".

It fascinates me to no end.
 

I don't think "fascinates" is the word we're looking for here.

Usually by people so warped, depressed, misanthropic, self-loathing and un self-aware ...

Hmm
 
2013-12-09 04:54:51 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Quantum Apostrophe: caring about the people alive today.

Is there a reason we should?


And why should I care about a future species that may not even be human anymore because evolution is still happening?

You're either trolling or a psychopath.

Gaddiel: What, am I not agreeing with you? Modern science knows everything. We have a full and complete understanding of the universe and nothing will ever change! Previously held notions about physics have never been disproved or found to be false or incomplete. Never ever will someone figure out new methods of energy storage, energy generation, or locomotion, or how to manipulate relativity or some other ridiculous bit of science fiction nonsense. It's fixed, final, finito, fait. Right?


Show me some new physics, some new engineering at the scale required, some particle we overlooked, some chemical element that's missing from the periodic table, I'll change my mind.

Keep in mind that if our science is wrong, doesn't that mean the observations we make about space could be wrong as well? Like maybe it's even more hostile than we could have imagined?

But no, let me guess, THAT science is beyond question!

Space is an endless continuation of Western post WWII society. But with rockets.

When you start invoking "yeah but we don't know everything" you invoke magic, faith, superstition and religion.

Given what we DO know? Don't pack your bags for Mars just yet.

But all you need to show me is some crack in our understanding of physics at our scale.

That's all I ask for. Show it to me, don't just wish about it.

If we DID suddenly find new methods of energy generation, wouldn't that mean the Earth ISN'T running out of resources? So why space?

If we DID suddenly find magical new materials here on Earth, why do we need to mine asteroids again?

If we DID have sci-fi asteroid mining robots, why wouldn't we just build and use those robots... right here?

That's another Space Nutter trademark: self-contradiction.

"All we need is to find magical energy sources so we can go into space to put up solar panels!"

Uh why, if we have a magical energy source?

I picked a fine day to be snowed in with never-ending Earl Grey, eh?
 
2013-12-09 04:54:51 PM

Millennium: We need a hero.
We need a cleaner.
We need... SPACE ROOMBA


Why? We already have a guy for that, goes by the name "Roger Wilco"

upload.wikimedia.org:
 
2013-12-09 05:01:21 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Gaddiel: What, am I not agreeing with you? Modern science knows everything. We have a full and complete understanding of the universe and nothing will ever change! Previously held notions about physics have never been disproved or found to be false or incomplete. Never ever will someone figure out new methods of energy storage, energy generation, or locomotion, or how to manipulate relativity or some other ridiculous bit of science fiction nonsense. It's fixed, final, finito, fait. Right?

Show me some new physics, some new engineering at the scale required, some particle we overlooked, some chemical element that's missing from the periodic table, I'll change my mind.


So wait a minute, your logic is that "Because we don't know what we don't know, it doesn't exist so don't bother."? We don't know what it will take to stop aging either, should we stop bothering? We don't know what will safely and reliably stop cancer without causing serious issues to the patient, does that mean we stop looking?

You're either a troll or ... nah fark it, you're a troll because not even the politics tab rejects are that stupid.
 
2013-12-09 05:03:44 PM

InfrasonicTom: A butterfly flaps its wings in geosynchronous orbit...


... and thinks "Oh no, not again!"
 
2013-12-09 05:08:12 PM

ikanreed: PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.

No, because orbits do not all have the same direction and profile.  An elliptical orbit between 10k and 100k is going to have way more speed than the object steady at 10k.


It depends on where you are in the orbit.  A 10kx100k orbit is going to have higher velocity at the 10k point and be realtively leisurely at the 100k point.
 
2013-12-09 05:22:52 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Keep in mind that if our science is wrong, doesn't that mean the observations we make about space could be wrong as well? Like maybe it's even more hostile than we could have imagined?


We already know that space is hostile enough to wipe out life on Earth. That's reason enough to get out of the nest before it happens.
 
2013-12-09 05:25:45 PM

Dingleberry Dickwad: your logic is that "Because we don't know what we don't know, it doesn't exist so don't bother."?


No, my logic is given what we do know, don't bother. Otherwise you can justify ANYTHING. Why is it that science will offer these incredible breakthroughs to allow space colonies, but not longer life?

It's not even that! You don't even WANT longer life!

In a universe 30 billion light years across, this is sane?

Dingleberry Dickwad: We don't know what it will take to stop aging either,


But given that there are already life forms that offer clues, it's orders of magnitude more likely to happen than Disney World on Mars.

Dingleberry Dickwad: We don't know what will safely and reliably stop cancer without causing serious issues to the patient, does that mean we stop looking?


Cancer exists. Patients exist.

Space fantasies? Not even a whimper of them.

Dingleberry Dickwad: You're either a troll or ... nah fark it, you're a troll because not even the politics tab rejects are that stupid.


There is another path: YOU are stupid.

It's a sign of wisdom to question your beliefs.

Look inside you, you know I am right.
 
2013-12-09 05:27:02 PM

Tobin_Lam: ikanreed: PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.

No, because orbits do not all have the same direction and profile.  An elliptical orbit between 10k and 100k is going to have way more speed than the object steady at 10k.

It depends on where you are in the orbit.  A 10kx100k orbit is going to have higher velocity at the 10k point and be realtively leisurely at the 100k point.


It depends on where the object is in orbit? How about you make an educated guess about the chances of a collision being imminent between one object at the 10k point and another at the 100k point.
 
2013-12-09 05:33:16 PM

DerAppie: How about you make an educated guess about the chances of a collision being imminent between one object at the 10k point and another at the 100k point.


Uh, you think we know everything there is to know about science, bub?

"Modern science knows everything. We have a full and complete understanding of the universe and nothing will ever change! "

Is that what you're saying???? Hmmm? What if one piece of debris can like, teleport and shiat to another orbital plane?

What THEN Mr I Know All About Science????

/According to the DSM-V, I have to add a disclaimer about reading the above post in the appropriate tone of voice
 
2013-12-09 05:36:05 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Dingleberry Dickwad: your logic is that "Because we don't know what we don't know, it doesn't exist so don't bother."?

No, my logic is given what we do know, don't bother. Otherwise you can justify ANYTHING. Why is it that science will offer these incredible breakthroughs to allow space colonies, but not longer life?

It's not even that! You don't even WANT longer life!

In a universe 30 billion light years across, this is sane?


Strawman, no one in here said anything about longer life or that figuring out life extension is mutually exclusive from learning more in other fields that would allow space travel. Point dismissed.

Quantum Apostrophe: Dingleberry Dickwad: We don't know what it will take to stop aging either,

But given that there are already life forms that offer clues, it's orders of magnitude more likely to happen than Disney World on Mars.


Another strawman, no one said anything about colonizing mars except you. Point dismissed.

Quantum Apostrophe: Dingleberry Dickwad: We don't know what will safely and reliably stop cancer without causing serious issues to the patient, does that mean we stop looking?

Cancer exists. Patients exist.

Space fantasies? Not even a whimper of them.


Bzzzzzt, foul on the play. Vague dismissal with no backing info. Point dismissed.

Quantum Apostrophe: Dingleberry Dickwad: You're either a troll or ... nah fark it, you're a troll because not even the politics tab rejects are that stupid.

There is another path: YOU are stupid.

It's a sign of wisdom to question your beliefs.


Kettle meet pot and reconvene when you've stopped trolling space and 3D printing threads.
 
2013-12-09 05:44:30 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: DerAppie: How about you make an educated guess about the chances of a collision being imminent between one object at the 10k point and another at the 100k point.

Uh, you think we know everything there is to know about science, bub?

"Modern science knows everything. We have a full and complete understanding of the universe and nothing will ever change! "

Is that what you're saying???? Hmmm? What if one piece of debris can like, teleport and shiat to another orbital plane?

What THEN Mr I Know All About Science????

/According to the DSM-V, I have to add a disclaimer about reading the above post in the appropriate tone of voice


Well, if the macroscopic matter would randomly teleport then we'd study it. We might get a nice way to get to Alpha Centauri and join Planet in the front of a Planetary Conscious, allowing us to live forever. Or until the local star and/or Planet blows up.
 
2013-12-09 06:14:35 PM
Well since I'm bored in a meeting, lets pretend you're not a troll and actually address some of your points.

Quantum Apostrophe:
Show me some new physics, some new engineering at the scale required, some particle we overlooked, some chemical element that's missing from the periodic table, I'll change my mind.

Keep in mind that if our science is wrong, doesn't that mean the observations we make about space could be wrong as well? Like maybe it's even more hostile than we could have imagined?

But no, let me guess, THAT science is beyond question!


Nope. That's entirely within the realm of possibility. Space is already pretty faring hostile and I have no clue how we'd manage to do it now, let alone if it were even more hostile. I may not live to witness it, but I bet it would be cool to see if and how mankind will achieve it. (As a warning, I will be reusing this phrase a lot for reasons I hope you can understand)

Space is an endless continuation of Western post WWII society. But with rockets.

When you start invoking "yeah but we don't know everything" you invoke magic, faith, superstition and religion.

See, this is usually the used to address argument out of ignorance. We don't know what it is therefore it must be whatever. "We don't know what that unidentified flying object is, so there fore it MUST be aliens from another world," is a good example. All I'm saying is that we (I) don't know. Wouldn't it be cool to figure it out? I am not saying what the solution or explanation to these problems is or that one even exists. However there are a lot of smart people doing a whole lot of work in every field imaginable, not to mention developing whole new fields of understanding and study just for the hell of it. I may not live to witness it, but I bet it would be cool to see if and how mankind will achieve it.

Given what we DO know? Don't pack your bags for Mars just yet.

I've got nothing to contest here. It may be a good while. Although some people with access to quite a bit of capital may disagree.  I may not live to witness it, but I bet it would be cool to see if and how mankind will achieve it.

But all you need to show me is some crack in our understanding of physics at our scale.

That's all I ask for. Show it to me, don't just wish about it.


So you want me to show something I don't know exists? Show me that there is NO crack in our understanding of physics at our scale. I'm not saying there is or isn't one, but it does seem a bit pompous of you to assume with certainty that we have it all understood and correct.

If we DID suddenly find new methods of energy generation, wouldn't that mean the Earth ISN'T running out of resources? So why space?

Who said anything about running out of resources. We may discover a new method of energy generation that first gets used on earth and we then incorporate into space travel. It may also be possible that we develop some new energy source that isn't feasible for use on a planet. Yes, that is science fiction, but are you absolutely certain, with your almost religious fervor, that it is and will never be possible?

If we DID suddenly find magical new materials here on Earth, why do we need to mine asteroids again?

Who said anything about mining asteroids? And what if we find it magical new materials (to use your words), but not on Earth? Could we go mine them then?

If we DID have sci-fi asteroid mining robots, why wouldn't we just build and use those robots... right here?

Why are those two mutually exclusive? Why can't we don't both? Although again with the mining, what do you have a thing for minors?  (Yes, I know, bad joke)

That's another Space Nutter trademark: self-contradiction.

I'm sure it happens that someone's space fantacy isn't thought through or self-contradiciting or just plain stupid. But to discard with such certainty all possibility of mankind spreading into the stars, I can only blame the bastard who pees into your cereal every morning for making you so pessimistic and jaded.

You asked why space. I'll quote someone who has stated it better than I ever could, "Because it's what's next. Because we came out of the cave. We looked out over the hill and saw fire. And we crossed the ocean. And we pioneered the west. And we took to the sky. The history of man has hung on the timeline of exploration and this is what's next."

Yes, we have problems here on earth. There is poverty, starvation, war; but no one was left colder or hungrier because of Apollo. Many of the technologies we needed to develop and were developed specifically for space exploration were pretty quickly repurposed here on earth. You ask why should we explore space before we figure out how to expand our lifespans. Why can't we do both? Why does one preclude the other? Why can't the computers developed for advanced space flight also be used to run biological or chemical simulations? It sure as hell worked out that way before.

I may be naive and a hopeless optimist, but I think humanity has a lot left it can and will do. Things that even the most deranged writers of fiction and fantasy could never dream up in on their craziest days.  I may not live to witness it, but I bet it would be cool to see if and how mankind will achieve it.
 
2013-12-09 06:23:14 PM
Dingleberry Dickwad:
//obviously not obscure

I had to google it. Loved those games.
 
2013-12-09 06:41:40 PM
Problem solved

img.fark.net
 
2013-12-09 08:27:30 PM
There's videos with more introduction that have been specifically posted on this potential disaster waiting to happen...

But basically, yeah, chain reactions in space are bad.

Check the video out and think Satelites instead of Mouse Traps...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKajmVgaOEM
 
2013-12-09 08:59:12 PM
Quantum Apostrophe:

Not sure why everyone hates Quantum here.  I think he's right regarding space fantasies and actual living beings here on earth.
 
2013-12-09 09:26:21 PM

Cortez the Killer: So, the movie Gravity, but in real life.

/Boring movie, IMO


That's what Gravity was loosely based on, but the movie suffered from no one involved in the project apparently having even heard of orbital mechanics, the sheer absurdity of the pin-perfect accuracy of the repeating scenario and the pants-on-head retardedness of thinking everything's in the same orbit to begin with makes the movie so laughably scientifically inaccurate that it's basically based entirely on the idea that there is a god and he's really sick of George Clooney's sappy bullshiat.

Which is I guess a high fantasy movie I can get behind, even if they had only one elf and they killed the party's dwarf in the first ten minutes.
 
2013-12-09 10:00:52 PM
I have more important things to be aware of/concerned about.
 
2013-12-09 10:03:12 PM
I'm working on a kerbal version of the Large Hadron Collider as we speak. It's currently about 40 EVA kerbals in opposing low EVE orbits... just waiting for magic to happen.

/Looking for the "Oh God! particle"
 
2013-12-09 11:30:34 PM
I am far from an expert on this topic, but, why not build some sort of traps that would deflect the objects towards Earth?

Maybe a solar powered electromagnet that gently nudges ferrous items into an orbit doomed to hit the atmosphere?

Maybe some sort of gigantic blob of material that would trap the smaller objects. If it was large enough, the engineers on the ground could keep the good stuff from hitting it. Imagine a chunk of high density rubber the size of a bus. Now imagine that someone figured out how to make it pliable in the coldness of space to the point that the objects would penetrate, but not shatter the trap.
 
2013-12-09 11:57:00 PM

jfarkinB: PsyLord: FTA: ...(imagine a screw traveling 20,000 miles an hour). That debris would then hit other objects in orbit

Aren't the other objects in orbit also traveling roughly the same speed?  The way they stated it in the article made it sound as though the screw is going to impact something that was not moving, so in essence a 20k mph hit.

Not necessarily. For starters, they could be traveling in the exact same orbit, but in the opposite direction. All the math works out the same, except that you get a closing speed of 40,000 mph. That would be unusual -- you generally launch into an orbit that lets you take advantage of the Earth's spin -- but not impossible. A more likely scenario is that one object was in something closer to a polar orbit, and the other something closer to equatorial...


 Remember the volumes involved -- unlike "Gravity".

Take every object that has ever been orbited by humankind and divide it up into screw-sized debris -- that's far beyond what we're talking about but will do for a maximum -- now remember that that debris is scattered randomly through a volume that is hundreds of thousands of times larger than the surface of the Pacific Ocean.  And nearly all of it is moving in the same orbital direction  -- very little, if any in retrograde orbit -- so the maximum velocity is from crossing orbits and nearly all polar debris will be in very different orbital altitudes from LEO (and essentially none at Geosynch altitudes)
 
2013-12-10 12:02:20 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: cranked: Quantum Apostrophe: It's the people that think we'll colonize the universe.

We're in a thread about debris that is actually in orbit around our actual planet, put there by actual people using actual science.  The only one going on about 'colonizing the universe', as usual, is you.  While you occasionally make interesting (and obvious points) you immediately follow up with a straw man larger than can reasonably be created with any number of 3D printers and then thrash the hell out of it, all the while explaining to everyone else how stupid they sound.

Oh come on. You know as well as I do that about a half dozen Farkers pulled down their pants at "orbit", and 5 of those came at "objects", probably while still bent over from taking off their pants.

Debris in orbit around our planet at about 0.1 radii. Yippee yay, let me pack my suitcase for Mars.

And if my points were so obvious, you'd think they'd start sinking in by now.

Jeez, just the other day someone told me in all seriousness we aren't really exploring space because we aren't walking on the Moon.

This delusion about people in space is powerful stuff.

It fascinates me to no end.

But not as much as people with a lifespan measured in a handful of decades babbling on and on about the whole species and its future in space.... Usually by people so warped, depressed, misanthropic, self-loathing and un self-aware that they see no problem about not caring about the people alive today.

Sickness.


www.rigsofrods.com
 
2013-12-10 12:21:10 AM
If we are serious about cleaning up space, we need to launch a rather large and robust spacecraft that might even require multiple refueling trips... It would catch up with debris and then "throw" it towards  the earth and let nature take its course while it moves on to the next piece of debris...  This shiat where you send a spacecraft up, latch on to debris, and then de-orbit both seems really really inefficient, expensive, and much more time consuming...
 
2013-12-10 05:40:08 AM

Maul555: If we are serious about cleaning up space, we need to launch a rather large and robust spacecraft that might even require multiple refueling trips... It would catch up with debris and then "throw" it towards  the earth and let nature take its course while it moves on to the next piece of debris...  This shiat where you send a spacecraft up, latch on to debris, and then de-orbit both seems really really inefficient, expensive, and much more time consuming...


I think that if we are able to get ahold of the debris, we should hold onto it and bring it to a collection point where it can be processed and reused in space based manufacturing, or as shielding. It should be viewed as a resource.
 
2013-12-10 05:52:32 AM

darkmayo: Kessler Syndrome!  (thanks Planetes for educating me of this years ago)


Yes... or what happened when Kerbalon 1 smashed into Kerbalon's 2 - 6. Parking orbits: how do they work?  farked if I know!

Planetes is also a great series, it does at least make some effort to be a little acurate about how moving around in space works.
 
2013-12-10 06:13:49 AM

Dingleberry Dickwad: Quantum Apostrophe: Gaddiel: What, am I not agreeing with you? Modern science knows everything. We have a full and complete understanding of the universe and nothing will ever change! Previously held notions about physics have never been disproved or found to be false or incomplete. Never ever will someone figure out new methods of energy storage, energy generation, or locomotion, or how to manipulate relativity or some other ridiculous bit of science fiction nonsense. It's fixed, final, finito, fait. Right?

Show me some new physics, some new engineering at the scale required, some particle we overlooked, some chemical element that's missing from the periodic table, I'll change my mind.

So wait a minute, your logic is that "Because we don't know what we don't know, it doesn't exist so don't bother."? We don't know what it will take to stop aging either, should we stop bothering? We don't know what will safely and reliably stop cancer without causing serious issues to the patient, does that mean we stop looking?

You're either a troll or ... nah fark it, you're a troll because not even the politics tab rejects are that stupid.


I'm surprised at how many people don't have him on ignore. I've only put a handful of people into that limbo, but he's very deservedly one of them.
 
2013-12-10 06:41:59 PM
Aren't most of these objects' orbits going to decay... eventually.
 
Displayed 83 of 83 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report