You won't find an answer to your question because you don't seem willing to drop your alarmist attitude.
There is just far too much space for 100k objects, let alone 10k to ever run the risk of collission. These satellites are all meant to be in line-of-sight. They will communicate with optics as opposed or in conjunction to radio.
You fear unforseen space particles destroying one and causing a chain reaction. Why don't you hold that same fear for existing satelittes which typically operate at an orbit with far lower decay rate? The orbit for StarLink is very low, small particles would not sustain their energy long enough to be a risk factor. The StarLink sats maintain orbit with fuel, everything else without fuel in that orbit will fall. The chance that a particle will end up in the same orbit, on the same plane, at the same time is astronomically low.
Your comments just echo the same type of delusions of people who think in their brillance they've found problems others have not foreseen. SpaceX is really just full of amateurs you ought to submit your findings.
> There is just far too much space for 100k objects, let alone 10k to ever run the risk of collission.
No, there isn't. Satellites can and do collide despite the vast amount of space in a given orbit. It is improbable, but likely enough to warrant at least some concern.
> Why don't you hold that same fear for existing satelittes which typically operate at an orbit with far lower decay rate?
I do, as does the FCC. This is evident in the fact that they now require any body wishing to launch a spacecraft guarantee that the craft can be put into a graveyard orbit.
> Your comments just echo the same type of delusions of people who think in their brillance they've found problems others have not foreseen. SpaceX is really just full of amateurs you ought to submit your findings.
I'm genuinely sorry this post made you feel this way. If I already had the brilliance to answer this question as I'm sure many bright minds at SpaceX do, I would not have asked the question and rebutted the responses to begin with.
> Satellites can and do collide despite the vast amount of space in a given orbit.
Excluding planned collisions, or collisions during failed docking, I found 4 instances of collisions between satellites and space debris. Ever. Now, a couple of things:
* Yes this larger constellation will increase those odds in the future.
* No, a catastrophic doomsday scenario did not occur when those happened.
* SpaceX will have complete control of these satellites through their operational lifespan (excluding collisions or malfunctions).
* Orbital decay for debris at the altitude they're operating at is ~10 years.
Also, have to ask... is all this concern a result of reading Seveneves? :)
I'm afraid I haven't heard of Seveneves before today, although it does look like an interesting read.
My concern is just from a general interest in spaceflight. More of a wish to protect a resource rather than a Chicken Little fear of the sky literally falling out.
Satellites don't just cross their paths by magic. If their orbits don't intersect, they can't collide. Satellites don't collide with each other, it has never happened.
Satellites do collide with debris, but that's a different issue. Furthermore, they don't need a guarantee that they can be put into a graveyard orbit - the proposed satellites (and even any debris, if they'd explode for whatever reason) will be in a graveyard orbit from day one until they stop being pushed up and deorbit.
I think much like alcohol it's very easy to dose in excess with cannabis. I'm not sure how many people recognize that cannabis is incredibly effective even at small doses.
These days, I take one hit in the morning and then just move on. The dose is low enough that I don't feel sluggish during or after, but still enough that I feel up and "high".
I think cannabis is invaluable in medicine, but I do think the culture around it, much like alcohol, has pushed using an excess and treating is as a party drug rather than medicine.
I've noticed that I have much more energy throughout the day when I get up as soon as my body wakes up. If I decide to sleep in because it's too early, I will usually have less energy.
I have to assume getting up at the end of a REM cycle is far better than starting another you cannot finish.
Consider me ignorant in this topic, but doesn't coal throughput beat out Solar or Wind? As far as I know you can always burn coal where as wind and solar are limited by external factors.
A 100% renewable grid is possible by over-deploying renewable capacity, and providing time of production and time of use smoothing through storage.
Solar is particularly good at addressing daily peaks because those peaks generally happen during the day. Wind is good at relatively steady production around the clock because there is almost always wind blowing somewhere.
Coal is pretty terrible because it takes hours to react to changes in demand. This is why we have the term “baseload”: the rest of the industry must be highly dispachable to work around the high thermal mass (and resultant low responsiveness) of coal plants.
In addition coal plant tends to be large monolithic production, so the loss of one plant represents a significant proportion of supply. Coal is thus a net hazard to power reliability.
You don't deserve to be downvoted for your statement, as it is correct- coal plants can function 34/7, unlike most other green sources other than geothermal.
Of course, gas plants can also function continuously, and for baseline, nothing beats nuclear. But burning gas for energy is far better than just releasing it unburned in to the air, or flaring it for no productive purpose.
As we get more large-scale batteries online, the variable output of things like wind and solar will matter less, and they will be able to provide an ever-increasing percentage of our energy mix. This is well underway, but it is a huge task that will take a long time to complete.
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic but I genuinely have loved this plane ever since I heard of it.
Primarily excited because I'm a huge fan of Honda, secondarily because the price-point, it is fairly affordable for what it is and I can hope to own one by my 50's when the price comes down a bit.
I was sarcastic. There is just nothing in this that's interesting in any way for this site unless I didn't see what makes this jet in any way novel. Otherwise we'll have to start posting all press releases for the latest Porsche, Ferrari or Lamborghini.
Introducing a new plane from a new company in a stagnant market is slightly different than another model from companies already in the car market. But thanks for coming here to tell us all how uninteresting it is for you!
FTA it looks exactly like what you describe, a new model from a company already in the market. Is it disrupting the industry in a way that those of us less versed in the aircraft industry don't see?
Very light jets are somewhat disruptive, having the altitude, speed, range, and reliability benefits of jets with turboprop/piston-engine single pilot capability and costs. There was nothing equivalent in general aviation prior to their arrival. The HondaJet is an innovative leader in this fairly hot space.
There is a potential for air taxi services opened up by these VLJs as well.
I know you were joking, but I was curious so I looked it up: the HondaJet can get about 4MPG (though presumably less for short trips), jet fuel currently costs about $2.20 per gallon (not sure if that’s retail or wholesale), and let’s say Stockton to SJC which is about 84 miles (though I’d probably go somewhere up or down the coast, or maybe Tahoe). That’s only 84/4*2.2 = $46 each way, in about 20 minutes.
Plus maintenance, storage, airport fees, pilot if you can’t fly it yourself, probably other stuff I don’t know about. Still, that’s a less fuel than I thought it would be.
I think the obvious solution here is to store your contacts with the country code. I believe you can also append it to contacts after the fact and it will update the iMessage thread. If you travel or have contacts out of your country, I find this to be useful.
Glad to see Apple is expanding NFC capabilities. One thing in particular that was exciting this last year was that all iPhone 8/X support Sony's contact payment standard used in Japan's transit system. Previously only the models sold there had the support.
