this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
1220 points (97.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

5837 readers
2482 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When 2 satellites collide, the pieces don't all stay on the same altitude. Even though none of them will be in a stable orbit, all it takes is for one piece to smack into a satellite that's a bit higher up before it de-orbits, and boom, now you've got a debris field that won't de-orbit.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Pieces don’t gain kinetic energy in a collision. Even if they collide and get sent off in an “upwards” direction, it’s not up very far relative to the orbit, and that’s just a less circular orbit at lower speed that will burn up even faster

For you scenario to work, there would have to be a chain reaction

  • collision, sending a few pieces upwards
  • during that small number of orbits they survive, collision, sending a few pieces upward
  • repeat many times

Each chance is remote enough, and ricocheting pieces only go so far, and any higher satellites they could reach are also low orbit, that I can’t imagine how remote the chances of this happening are

Kessler syndrome is a real worry, but not in this low orbit