orange_squeezer @ orange_squeezer @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

14

Joined

4 mo. ago

Not sure why that's relevant in any way, especially when it was made in Japan.

Not to mention the fact that there has never been confirmation of animal abuse in the movie, per the snopes article linked under your prior comment.

I didn't realize they were running two sets of this argument in here. For what it's worth, you're right. An orbital impact ejection in low earth orbit creates an eccentric orbit where the debris skims even lower in the atmosphere than it would have in a circular orbit, dragging it out of the sky far faster than it would have otherwise. And while the debris could hit a satellite in a higher and therefore more problematic orbit, it's so wildly unlikely that it's not meaningful to consider.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure they blocked me, so I figured I'd send a distant affirmation of support.

Right. I'll note, that your linked article says nothing about Kessler beyond a quote of his saying that space debris would continue to increase even if all launches stopped. Otherwise, the article mainly comments that the sheer number of Starlink satellites below the ISS could interfere with launch/entry opportunities while drastically increasing the number of space objects being tracked by the DoD and NASA.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Starlink, all I'm pointing out is that Kessler Syndrome is not one of them. I'm assuming you've somewhat ironically blocked me, but since we're exchanging links, here is an article that interviews several scientists including one that worked under Kessler at NASA and now works on NASA's orbital debris modeling.

https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/features/understanding-the-misunderstood-kessler-syndrome/

Really playing to your username, eh. I am familiar with Kessler Syndrome. You'll note that the most important aspect of said event, is the height, at which objects orbit, as that determines how long it takes for it to deorbit. The level of risk declines precipitously the closer to the earth the orbit is, and even if there was a catastrophic cascade at the height Starlink orbits, it would clear after a few years at most.

Impact ejection can cause eccentric orbits, but at that height, those deorbit even faster.

Fortunately, the very clever scientists at NASA have long since determined that there is essentially no risk from Starlink and similar satellite constellations, because they've been paying attention to this since before I was born.

... Well, fortunately, I don't manage satellite deployments, but your friends are welcome to tell NASA that their aerospace engineers are actually wrong and need to stop SpaceX before they ground humanity. I'm sure they would love to hear it.

Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit and deorbit naturally after a few years because of the small amounts of escaping atmosphere slowing them down. A collision cascade can't really happen because it's a fundamentally decaying orbit.

At least, there's no risk of lasting orbital debris, at the cost of the satellites having a much shorter lifespan.

It wasn't until I got to the cigarettes and cunts as currency that I realized this was not a particularly hardcore monologue from Gravity Falls, a popular show I had not watched, but Gravity's Rainbow. Great excerpt though.

What? It's literally the opposite. Do you remember the discovery that owning horses extends your lifespan by several years, not for any merit of its own, but because it strictly excludes the poor and most of the middle class?

The more money you have, the healthier you are, the longer you live, and the happier you tend to be. It's straight propaganda that being rich is somehow a burden or requires people of exceptional mental strength to struggle on.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3139960/

On the internet, people have to be more honest.

I... don't think that's how it works lol.

Alright, but that's not what the article says. I even went back and the read the first of the three-parter, where the businesses they interviewed confidently stated

MP’s Rosenthal, USA Rare Earth’s Althaus and McCarthy all said their companies — or proposed companies — could withstand a price war brought on by China. Which fundamentally requires China not be selling at a loss, unless it's actually cheaper to mine and refine rare earths in the US than it is in China.

The closest thing to what you claimed was a snippet from the 100-day government review stating that “China does not operate on market principles of cost or pricing structure.” According to your own source, they never drove anyone out of business or sold at loss, they just happened to be the first to invest in rare earth production and processing, and nobody else wanted to build the facilities for it. At worst they provided subsidies, just like the US which also ignored market principles of cost or pricing structure, and allocated 400 million (Defense Production Act) to develop local mines and refineries.

More than anything your article series blames a 1980 government regulation that requires US mines to seal mine leavings or risk liability for mishandling thorium.

... Do you have a source for that, because it kinda seems like you made it up.

Feels like the first piece of good news I've read in days.

Less than twenty years after the Catholic church formed "rat lines" to smuggle Nazis to South America to protect them from prosecution for their crimes against humanity.

There is, but it's basically made up to support the notion that it's very difficult to stay rich. It's actually very rare for subsequent generations to lose inherited wealth, it just gets partitioned out so there are dozens or hundreds of rich people instead of one disgustingly wealthy individual.

Similar to lottery winners losing everything, it makes a much bigger headline when one loses everything despite it being incredibly uncommon.