Jump to content

6 Decades of Space Junk


Caelib

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, insert_name said:

is that ring of debris I see the graveyard orbit near gso, or gso itself?

The GEO graveyard orbit is only 200 km above actual GEO orbit, so at this scale, it's pretty much the same ring.

We've spoken about this representation before, and it's rubbish. The dots are not to scale, they look like they are 50 km wide. In reality, you wouldn't be able to see them.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool video did you make it 

Six hundred years of debris on the wall, six hundred years of debris! Take one down, pass it around, five hundred ninety nine years of debris on the wall!

 

Wait that's 600 again :D Happy New Years 

Edited by Findthepin1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

The GEO graveyard orbit is only 200 km above actual GEO orbit, so at this scale, it's pretty much the same ring.

We've spoken about this representation before, and it's rubbish. The dots are not to scale, they look like they are 50 km wide. In reality, you wouldn't be able to see them.

It represents quantity and expanse occupied by debris. The only thing it doesn't represent is the actual density, but that's not very relevant. And if you think this representation is rubbish, you must also think that every single representation of Solar System is equally rubbish. When you talk about things on cosmic scale, even this close to home, maintaining proportion between objects is a fool's task. You can't come up with anything useful by doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, K^2 said:

It represents quantity and expanse occupied by debris. The only thing it doesn't represent is the actual density, but that's not very relevant. And if you think this representation is rubbish, you must also think that every single representation of Solar System is equally rubbish. When you talk about things on cosmic scale, even this close to home, maintaining proportion between objects is a fool's task. You can't come up with anything useful by doing so.

It depends on what you want to convey and how your audience will interpret your representation. This sort of representation is bound to be misleading unless it's accompanied with an explanation in very large letters.

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nibb31 said:

It depends on what you want to convey and how your audience will interpret your representation. This sort of representation is bound to bring up misinterpretations unless it's accompanied with an explanation in very large letters.

What it conveys to me, and dare I say, what it is meant to convey, is that we've been waaaaaaaaaay busier in space than most people seem to think. Yes, a disclaimer might be nice, because a few people might get confused. But calling it rubbish is absolutely unfounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RainDreamer said:

If this is 60 years, I wonder what it is going to be like in 60 decades

If all goes right, significantly less debris. We should be establishing stations, with all of the Earth-to-Orbit hops being very low energy, leaving debris to decay. Something like a launch loop would be ideal, of course, but either way, we can't be leaving this sort of mess behind even in the 21st, let alone consecutive centuries.

Edited by K^2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...