World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Assuming none of the debris gets pushed into higher orbits.
Orbits are elipses, which are loops. So after the explosion gives an object more energy it's in a new orbit right? That orbit has LOOP. Which means it has to come back to a similar point it's at now. Therefore if an object passes through low orbit, no one explosion can make it be in a high orbit. At best it'll be an ellipse with a point in high orbit and a point in low orbit.
Any amount in low orbit means a decaying orbit due to drag with eventual falling out of the sky.
If you get to the high orbit point and you get a SECOND explosion that's perfectly timed you could theoretically enter a new high orbit that's stable over the long term and contribute to Kessler syndrome.
Blowing up a low orbit satellites can lead to many particles reaching high altitudes, if only temporary as you say, where they can cause cascades. Unstable orbits make the probability of collisions smaller, but they need to shatter only one satellite to end up with a mess in stable orbits.
Space is pretty big. I understand the odds are non zero but it's still really small in this scenario.
There’s a whole concept about this, a Kessler countdown of some sort. Some scientists are trying to figure out in the hypothetical situation where all satellites in orbit lost attitude control and evasive maneuver capabilities, how long would it take to initiate the Kessler syndrome. Apparently we went from months to days within the last decade.
An astrophysicist I follow on Matodon is super vocal about it. I’ll have to find her posts.
Ok found it, is is pretty relevant.
https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets/116880423574782457
I think it will depend on how they would disable the satellites. There's a lot of Starlink satellites, it's a lot of particles if they use explosives...
I'll grab my popcorn and watch all the fireworks and Star link bits twinkle
If bits of satellite get propelled in the original direction of travel, they will stabilize into a higher orbit.
Much like how you can do the rocket equivalent of hitting the gas and end up in higher orbit.
Not without a second impulse at the minimum. There are no stabilising forces like friction or drag in space.
They'll slow down whenever they hit their original altitude (or lower), no? Is it impossible for this to result in a stable higher orbit?
There is a low altitude and a high altitude point in an orbit. (Apogee for the high point, perigee for the low point) If you slow down at perigee, the altitude of the apogee decreases. If perigee is in atmosphere, then every time you go through that point, you slow down and the apogee decreases again. Sooner or later too much of the orbit is below atmosphere, and whatever it is that was in orbit burns up or falls down.
I think.
Ah, at last someone properly qualified to talk on the matter. So nice to see another graduate from the Kerbal Space Program.
Ah, so you'd need an impulse around the apogee, and acceleration around just the perigee can't create a stable orbit? Makes sense, thanks!
Thats what I remember, someone who plays KSP will probably be along to telle what I forgot.
I was just thinking this conversation is clear who has played KSP.
Simplified, you have a rocket orbiting around the earth going over both poles in a circular orbit. Above the north pole its 250km high and fires off its rocket all at once. Now its orbit is an eclipse going to 500km above the south pole, but it will return to 250km above the north pole. If you want to increase your altitude over the north pole you would need to accelerate above the south pole.
Orbiting is much more about going really really fast than it is about going really high up. Vast majority of the acceleration of launching into orbit goes into acceleration parallel to the ground rather than lifting away from it.
Yes. Gravity! Provided by the orbit-ee.