this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
99 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
15 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why is it "going to get worse"? A 4-second delay might need to be done for launches more frequently, but I don't see why the delays would get longer than that - debris moves out of the way at the same speed regardless of how much of it there is. This doesn't seem like a big deal. If a 4-second delay risks killing your mission then you probably should have designed the mission with more leeway in its launch window to begin with. There are a huge number of technical issues that could easily cause a 4-second delay.
Of course, that doesn't result in a headline that draws clicks.
Edit: I just read the article. "It's going to get worse" doesn't appear anywhere in it. You just made that up.
Do you think there will be less things in orbit in the future or more? Because it's less 'made that up' and more 'inferred based on what happens in reality.'
As I said, "more things in orbit" does not imply longer delays. It would mean that launches would have to delay 4 seconds more frequently, not that they would need to delay longer than 4 seconds.
If a 4 second delay is a problem then your mission is badly designed from the start since there are very many reasons you might encounter a 4 second delay.