A technically correct, but insignificant headline which appears dangerous at first glance; yeah that seems par for the course of modern journalism.
This is blog post by someone who finds it interesting
SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
81–90 of 231 posts
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the Starlink sats are so low that they dont really turn very meaningful debris ever. Is that right? Scientific American seemed to think it could be a problem in 2019[1]. Space.com says Starlink satellites orbit at an altitude of about 342 miles (550 kilometers)[2]. And the Wikipedia article on Kessler Syndrome[3] (which is a chain reaction of satellite debris) mentions an incident at 555km that was problematic: "In…
I don’t have references for this, but my understanding is that you have more to worry about space debris that is higher/faster than lower/slower. The atmospheric drag is such that any out of control craft at [some threshold] or under will deorbit themselves fairly quickly, and the debris will burn up entirely. I believe that threshold is around 450-500km, but it’s also probably not a literal height, more of a gradien…
Higher orbits are slower, not faster. Very low orbits as you say though are less an issue due to atmospheric drag deorbiting debris. A bit higher and debris will stay up much longer, even higher up though and there's so much room we can't possibly put out enough material to fill the orbits yet. The mid point of that scale is the dangerous region.
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#83Seems like this isn't considered to be a big issue, beyond that it is a very visible thing that instinctively 'feels' like a bad idea. > Rocket engines spray water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) into the ionosphere, quenching local ionization by as much as 70%. A complicated series of charge exchange reactions between oxygen ions (O+) and molecules from the rocket exhaust produce photons at a wavelength of 6300 Å–the…
Totally stupid Q: Can we harvest any of this energy>?
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#84Seems like this isn't considered to be a big issue, beyond that it is a very visible thing that instinctively 'feels' like a bad idea. > Rocket engines spray water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) into the ionosphere, quenching local ionization by as much as 70%. A complicated series of charge exchange reactions between oxygen ions (O+) and molecules from the rocket exhaust produce photons at a wavelength of 6300 Å–the…
Totally stupid Q: Can we harvest any of this energy>?
Solar Panels
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. (They can just be awfully hard to count, no matter who counts.)
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Glad to hear it! Because I know a large family that doesn't have a computer. I'll send you their address so you can mail them yours!
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that all distinct orbits at the same altitude eventually collide.
What do you mean? If they're both circular orbits, they'll have the same period, so they'll never collide—they'll always be on opposite sides of the Earth. In fact, this goes for any two orbits with identical periods.
There is no such thing as an identical period. It may seem identical when you compare them casually but over time the little differences add up and sooner or later the two will intersect, unless either one of the two moves to a different orbit or de-orbits. Satellite orbits are not locked together by magic, they are all independent of each other.
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#87Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
just because I appreciate it when people do it for me waste -> vast https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vast
Thank you for this. Is 'waste' used in a specific vernacular? I've never heard of someone saying waste instead of vast before.
[deleted]
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
just because I appreciate it when people do it for me waste -> vast https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vast
Thank you for this. Is 'waste' used in a specific vernacular? I've never heard of someone saying waste instead of vast before.
No, it was almost certainly a typo. There is no condition under which "waste majority" makes sense, but the poster was talking about waste, and the two words share 3 letters in common, so an easy mistake to make when typing quickly.
But for anyone who's not 100% comfortable with English, "the vast majority" is not simply a case of a descriptive adjective modifying the noun "majority," but it's actually a common phrase. People don't say "the big majority" or "the large majority," it's specifically "the vast majority."
If you wanted to use a different adjective, you could say "a large majority," and that would mean something like "most but not all and the 'but not all' is kind of significant" where as "the vast majority" means "nearly all of them, and the 'not all' is insignificant."
Re: SpaceX punched a hole in the ionosphere
#90A technically correct, but insignificant headline which appears dangerous at first glance; yeah that seems par for the course of modern journalism.
Not being able to tell the difference between a news article and a blog post is par for the course of modern society.