> On 13 Mar, 2018, at 7:31 pm, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Size, until the object gets really small, really doesn't matter. > > The odds of a collision drop proportionally (what's the math?) to > size. Imagine useful sats this small, or smaller, in lower orbits that > burn up in a few years, and constant replacement and technological > refreshment...
Observation: we're talking about an object that's substantially bigger than a bullet, substantially heavier than a bullet, and travelling *faster* than a bullet. Collisions with such an object would be extremely high-energy, and spacecraft don't have the weight budget for the tank-grade armour required to survive such an impact. I don't think the occupants of the ISS would be very happy with being hit by a titanium cricket ball at 10,000 kph relative. Also, the probability of collision, given random trajectories, depends on the sizes of *both* objects involved - and rather more strongly on the size of the *larger* object. If you reduce the size of a 10cm object by 50%, it has much less effect on the combined collision radius than reducing the size of a 10m object by 50%. - Jonathan Morton _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list Cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
