zlacker

>>jonbae+(OP)
How is a multiple square-kilometer radiator not just an inevitable Kessler syndrome disaster?

Edit: Some back of the envelope calculation suggests that the total cross-sectional area of all man-made orbiting satellites is around 55000 m^2. Just one 4km x 4km = 1600000m^2 starcloud would represent an increase by a factor of about 300. That's insane.

>>tmvphi+0s
Sounds like a "slippery slope" fallacy without further explanation.

>>camina+Cs
Not sure what the slippery slope is here. The linked page imagines a 4km x 4km radiator/solar array. The cross-sectional area of the array is going to be directly proportional to the probability of impacting high velocity space debris. In such an event the amount of debris that would be generated could also scale with the area of the array. This seems bad

>>tmvphi+fv
> This seems bad

e.g., Cianide seems bad, but it won't kill you if the relative volumes are small.

tl;dr: You haven't characterized the denominator.

>>camina+cz
See my edit. Just one starcloud would represent an increase in a risk factor of over 300 c.f. status quo. Then multiply that by the number of starclouds you think would be deployed.

>>tmvphi+aA
You still keep playing with the numerator.

> increase in a risk factor of over 300

Even with a numerator-only view, I suspect it's not fair to characterize the "risk factor" as going up 300x. There's a lot more nuance about orbits in space.