JoshuaZ comments on Open Thread, December 16-31, 2012 - Less Wrong

4 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 16 December 2012 06:26AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (159)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 16 December 2012 04:29:10PM 7 points [-]

Is Kessler syndrome relevant to existential risk? Kessler syndrome is the danger that if low-earth orbit becomes sufficiently crowded, a bad collision could result in a cascade effect. This would in a few hours or days destroy all satellites in LEO and would possibly render LEO unusable for decades. While this isn't an existential risk by itself, it may be relevant. Many existential risks can be dealt with in part by simply not having all are eggs in one basket- nuclear war, nanotech, and many others fall into this category. Meanwhile some existential risks such as large asteroids can only be detected and stopped by having well-developed space capabilities.

So is Kessler syndrome relevant to existential risk? Does this not substantially matter because there's already a fair bit of resources going in to preventing it?

Comment author: TimS 17 December 2012 12:55:09AM 3 points [-]

possibly render LEO unusable for decades

I'm not an engineer, but I find it hard to believe that we couldn't clean up LEO at reasonable cost - if we really wanted to. We don't now because it is expensive with no obvious pay-off, but returning LEO to usability is a pretty big pay-off.

Comment author: evand 21 December 2012 11:59:46PM 2 points [-]

Given the amount of debris, and recent trends in launch costs, launch rates, space project completion times and budgets... I'd say decades sounds entirely reasonable. If we had a more serious launch infrastructure in place, it might be done in a few years. Right now, we might get a useful pilot result in a few years if we started a high-priority project today. It would be more years before the project was operating at a useful rate, and yet more to finish cleanup.

Part of the problem is that very small objects moving at high velocity are problematic, and there simply is no easy way to catch them without creating more such objects. At present, many serious proposals actually involve handling every piece of debris individually. That's expensive, to say the least. Other proposals involve complicated stuff with deploying large objects like thin films, threads, etc., which is an activity with a very poor success rate thus far.

Comment author: TimS 26 December 2012 01:38:05AM 1 point [-]

Given . . . recent trends in launch costs, launch rates, space project completion times and budgets.

My point is that taking those trends as a given after a Kessler syndrome catastrophe - when substantially all technology that relies on LEO satellites no longer work - is a strange presumption. Current trends contain very little information about what would happen if LEO were unusable.

If GPS stopped working, the US government would fund its replacement solely to regain the military advantage it provides. Likewise, telecommunications companies would be irrational if they refused to devote a substantial portion of their potential revenue to re-building the capacity that earns them billions in revenue.

In short, the lack of resources currently devoted to clean-up may not be maximizing expected value - but there's substantial resources that would become available if failure to provide them would leave LEO unusable for multiple decades. Taxes would be raised, private bonds would be floated, environmental regulations would be waived or amended, but LEO would be made usable.

Comment author: evand 26 December 2012 03:28:42AM 1 point [-]

The problem is not the funding, it's the lack of anyone to give it to. The Apollo program had von Braun. We don't have a replacement for him. Musk is close, but unproven. The answer is not any of the other existing companies, or today's NASA, or JPL. That's not an organization you can just create with money.

No one today knows now to build what we need in that time frame.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 17 December 2012 05:36:02AM 0 points [-]

So there are a few proposals to dealing with this sort of thing, but most serious proposals are more preventative in nature. There are good engineering solutions for picking up old satellites and large pieces of debris. But small pieces of debris are not as easily dealt with- there have been some proposed solutions but no one is clear on if any of them are actually viable, at most right now there are a few toy models and back of the envelope calculations that suggest some solution will work. Right now, large nets seems like a promising idea but the problem of puncturing is serious.

Comment author: Thomas 17 December 2012 05:39:49PM 0 points [-]

At least, a lot of chunks would de-orbit, due to the energy loss.