Jump to content

Talk:Kessler syndrome/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Planetes / Etymology

Maybe at some point we could work in "Planetes" the anime, which refers to the Kessler Syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs) 05:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten parts of the article and brought it more into line with Wikipedia:Guide to layout (and added reference to Planetes), but it still reads a little too conversationally for an encyclopedia entry.
Also, I tried to find a proper reference to Donald Kessler's work, but had no luck, just a few articles mentioning or quoting him. I know Kessler Syndrome is a legitimate, acknowledged term, but the article really needs a reference to the paper or publication in which the scenario was first described, if indeed it originated in print. Heliocentric 21:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Donald Kessler wrote a paper, "Collisional cascading: The limits of population growth in low earth orbit", Advances in Space Research, Volume 11, Number 12, 1991, pg 63-66. I can't find the article online, without requiring a subscription to a service. I've read the article, but it doesn't talk about a "syndrome". I suspect someone coined the phrase after reading the paper. -Taka2007 06:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Taka2007 is correct. The term "Kessler Syndrome" was introduced around 1980 by NORAD's John Gabbard to a magazine reporter, who then published the term. Gabbard was referring to Kessler's 1978 JGR paper, which first predicted that collisions between catalogued objects would produce a large number of objects too small to catalogue, and would do so "possibly well before the year 2000". The JGR paper also predicts that "...over a longer time period the debris flux will increase exponentially..." due to a slow cascading of the larger fragments.
Since the publication of the 1978 paper, NASA has learned that other fragmentation processes have already created a large number of objects too small to catalogue and has introduced operational procedures to reduce the number of these fragmentation events; however, in the long-term, it seems to be recognized by most of the space community that collisional fragmentation will produce the larger hazard to other spacecraft, and be the most difficult to control or prevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DebrisGuy (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The example syndrome-causing collision sounds like it came from Planetes. The anime is meticulous in its science, but could we still get some figures? --Kizor 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

March 2007

Added link in references to Planet ES 71.214.248.99 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC) SYONYK

Solutions?

Although too much speculation could go into the realm of Original Research, I was wondering if this article should have a section on proposed solutions to Kessler Syndrome. Most involve merely not making the problem worse, but other potential solutions have been propsed, such as Arthur C. Clarke's Operation Cleanup from Fountains of Paradise, to zapping fragments with lasers. I don't really know if the physics of this works out, but what I'm wondering is if there could someday be massive Aerogel "nets" (like giant versions of Stardust's sample collectors) put in orbit, each measuring acres in size. They could be deployed as shields around sensitive satellites or just rove around debris heavy space, capturing small particles while the larger bits would be vaporized with lasers or simply grabbed with nets once velocity is matched. Searches for solutions turned up this:

Space_debris#Mitigation_measures,

[1]

[2]

and various Slashdot postings reveal that I'm hardly the first to make such speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.118.249 (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Error in the speed of the satellite collision of 2009

The article reads: "satellite at high speed nearly 790km over Siberia" - 790 Km is a distance, not a speed. --82.109.90.242 (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is source information about much earlier collision of satellites. https://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv9i2.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.69.81.148 (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Kessler syndrome in fiction

I don't see how mentioning space debris in movies is in any way relevant to this specific subject. I propose those lines be stricken as irrelevant. --84.249.164.59 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the following due to lack of references:
    • The 2007 video game Mass Effect does not reference it directly, but the in-game encyclopedia describes being in Earth orbit without protective shields as being dangerous because of debris.
    • Bill Maher, host of "Real Time with Bill Maher", mentioned the Kessler effect on April 3, 2009 in his weekly edition of "New Rules".
    • The 1990 role-playing game Rifts mentions that communications satellites are unavailable in the post-apocalyptic I did find it world because of space debris.
    • An ablation cascade that rendered space travel impossible is a plot driver in "Under the Covenant Stars", a short story by John Barnes.
I will wait to hear from others regarding removing the entire section itself. Normally I am not a fan of 'trivia' sections but after researching Kessler Syndrome I personally found it extremely interesting seeing how authors/directors thought the syndrome would affect humanity in the future. Freikorp (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I have renamed the section 'Kessler syndrome in fiction', which I believe is more appropriate, this also further separates the referenced information from traditional 'In popular culture' sections on wikipedia, which are usually just collections of unreferenced Simpson and Family Guy quotes. Freikorp (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Who needs a citation for Planetes? Cleaning debris to avoid incidents is the single entire premise of the series. Is like if the "orcs" page on wikipedia mentioned "Lord of the Rings foe are mostly Orcs" and you slapped a "citation needed there". 77.39.160.13 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The merge discussion has concluded, Evand has merged a few topics into Kessler Syndrome, Ablation cascade now redirects to Kessler Syndrome. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  1. I propose that Ablation cascade is merged into this article. The topics are similar. Ablation cascade has an air of original research, I cannot find any references using the term "Ablation cascade" - nor can I find any sources claiming that it could be triggered by a single collision event. I have added two references of Joel R. Primack to the Kessler page, where the concern is militarization, or weaponization, of space, with debris - a situation where some (smaller) powers may opt to deny everybody (larger powers included) safe access to space, by deliberate injection of (substantial quantities?) of obiting debris - this could then trigger a cascade. As I read the papers, the event is clearly larger than the destruction of a single satelite.
  2. The discussion above seems to question of the generally accepted use of "Kessler Syndrome". Perhaps the article should be "Space debris cascade" - of course with proper reference to Kessler, and a redirect from Kessler Syndrome Power.corrupts (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk seems to have died down. Ablation cascade remains highly redundant and mostly uncited. I've merged in the bit about laser brooms, since that seems applicable to the Kessler Syndrome. Unless citations or strong objections appear soon, I plan to change Ablation Cascade into a redirect here; aside from the laser broom section and the reference to the KS page, there is no cited material there to be merged. Evand (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree, thought of the same thing. I was unaware of the reference identified by Kitchen Knife, but only one occurrence in fiction is insufficient for an article of its own. A redirect is better than deletion, because the text is retained in history, if better sources show up later. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT merge

  • Support -- I support the merger of the two articles. The ablation cascade article is particularly weak and does, as noted, seem to be heavily based on original research. Having said that, once the articles are merged it may very well be that a follow-up discussion should be initiated to determine if some name other than Kessler Syndrome might be better. I would tend to think so, but think we ought to develop consensus on just one major issue at a time. For now, my view is to simply merge the Ablation cascade article into Kessler syndrome. N2e (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – But only retain verifiable content, possibly as a "popular culture" reference. The best that I can tell, the term "Ablation cascade" was coined by science fiction writer Ken MacLeod. Skipping through the article's history I can find no other external references for this term. A web search seems to only turn up Wikipedia mirrors and recent recent media coverage seem to all refer back to this article. The term "Kessler Syndrome" is the result of a scientific paper and and thus carries more weight in my opinion. The emphasis on exploding satellites strikes me as more fiction than fact. (I believe the more likely scenario is damage and the scattering of debris as a result of high velocity impacts.) If Ablation cascade is retained, it should be limited to coverage of the fictional usage. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OPPOSE merge

Please clarify your point. If the term is "only tangentially related to spacecraft in Earth orbit", I would say your comment supports the OR suspicion(?) Before proposing the merger, I did extensive searches, because negative proof arguments (of the type: I can't find anything on ...) easily irritates agitates me, and I'm quite aware that such arguments often merely exposes the proposer's hopeless lack of knowledge/insight, sloppy work, other misgivings etc. Yes, the term "Ablation cascade" is used in completely unrelated fields, but nowhere in orbital flight. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, to clarify: the ablation cascade article should be improved by making a clear exposition of the concept for which the term is scientifically accepted, and mentioning that the term is informally used for the hypothetical space debris situation Donald Kessler called, "collisional cascading." Other than that brief mention of this article in that one, there's no content to merge. Delete ablation cascade if you want. Just please don't merge any of its content here. (sdsds - talk) 09:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose I agree with Kitchen Knife that an ablation cascade may be a cause of Kessler Syndrome, but is not the same thing. That being said, we may need to find some more sources for this article. --WhiteDragon (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ablation cascade disclaimer

So I now see why that page was merged here, however that doesn't solve the issue I have. I first found this page be searching 'Ablation cascade' and being redirected. I already knew the two terms were similar, however the current Kessler syndrome page doesn't mention the words 'ablation cascade' at all. I was left wondering exactly what an ablation cascade was.

Are there any protests to me adding a second paragraph to the opening statement stating something like "The term Ablation cascade has been used to describe a single event creating Kessler syndrome, such as an explosion in space resulting in enough debris to destroy all the remaining satellites." Freikorp (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ma be but what you described is not a cascade to be a cascade it is not a single event that destroys all the other satellites but one event causing move events which intern cause more until there is nothing left. Each collision has, on average, to cause more the 1 collision. I other words a chain reaction.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. I'll give it a day or two and will add something like that if no-one has any objections. Freikorp (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The history of the term is fuzzy. I believe the term was coined by the book The Sky Road, but I don't think it had much use elsewhere. With the 2009 satellite collision, the media and other web sites (such as Astronomy Picture of the Day), pick up the term, possibly from the Wikipedia article before it was merged. In a few of its newsletters and reports [3], NASA seems to prefer the term "Kessler Syndrome".  :::I think adding a paragraph if fine, but I would suggest qualifying the term with its origin in fiction. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. Naturally feel free to reword, that's the best way I could think to put it. Freikorp (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

An animation showing a simulation of such a cascade developing would be nice

Does anyone know of any videos (or animated GIFs) depicting such a simulation? --TiagoTiago (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=kessler+syndrome+animation&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwig-oi9s5HiAhWHMd8KHdWOAY0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1399&bih=766

--Patbahn (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Would it be worth linking to PHO if the ablation cascade was used for defense?

Could the disintegration of an inbound Potentially hazardous object of a limited size be accelerated for protection by intentionally triggering the cascade? --Michaelangel0 1:09 17 december 2012

The Kessler Syndrome and the feature movie "Gravity"

In the film the character played by Clooney estimates that the debris will arrive every 90 minutes and he is shown to be correct.

I am skeptical about a 90 minutes cycle. I gather the Kessler syndrome is a chain reaction caused by debris causing further release of debris following impact with satellites. Although the kinetic energy of the initial impact may have been directional I would have thought that the spreading reaction would generally propagate in all directions so that near completion of the reaction, the debris are spreading in all directions at varying velocities causing a spreading cloud. The perimeters of the cloud would eventually touch and overlap (as they encircled the Earth) so that there would be no particular regular cycle.

Does the above sound more plausible than the scenario shown in the film? 194.176.105.153 (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It would look like this. Video The 90 minutes is the orbital time the film makers have forgot that they are moving.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That video only illustrates the distribution of debris from the one Chinese test. It doesn't extrapolate from that particular event to a broader Kessler-type cascade entailing an increasing number of satellites. Also, the filmmakers didn't really forget that the stranded astronauts are themselves on orbit and moving. In the film Gravity, the shattered Russian satellite was on a different orbit from the Space Shuttle's. The two orbital paths were in two different planes at two different inclinations to the Equator, and they were at different altitudes. They passed close to each other twice each revolution. The Space Shuttle's original path would come close to the other satellite's about every 45-minutes. If the two paths were at only slightly different heights, the expanding cloud of shrapnel would pose a threat to astronaut Stone about every 45-minutes. In the Film's original draft script the interval is 45-minutes. They fudged it to give the Protagonist more time to save her rump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How close are we from it being inevitable?

How close are we from the cascade being an inevitable result of any satellite collision? Or in other words, right now what are the odds the cascade will take place after one collision? --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional and dramatic representations

This section may not quite fit the guidelines found at WP:In popular culture. It seems to be a random list of pieces of fiction that feature the Kessler Syndrome; this list has become almost as long as the rest of the article, and most of the entries are not cited per WP:V. I believe this section could use some clean up, and would appreciate any help. Thoughts? Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Not only that, but looking through most of the mentions, they're about space debris in general, not the Kessler syndrome specifically. I'm going to remove any that aren't clearly about the specific term. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed more than half the entries. Some were arguably about the Kessler syndrome, but were not central to the plot, and therefor seemed a little crufty. Others were too vague to determine. The three remaining entries all appear to be notable works with the Kessler syndrome being central to their plots. I may have been too drastic? Without actual sources it's hard to say. Grayfell (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Likelihood

Are there good studies we can cite to support some content about likelihood? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Project WestFord

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford

Does it make sense to reference Project West Ford (Project Needles) into this?

At least as a general reference?

--Patbahn (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kessler_syndrome/Archive_1&oldid=1136872994"