zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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+X3
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+V4
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.

>>camina+88
Tell me the nuance then. If people have concerns about Kessler syndrome at the starlink scale then why wouldn't something literally 1000x bigger be even more concerning.

>>tmvphi+Jb
I already did. Your reply/edit merely repeated your prior observation.

Getting back to the point:

You literally claimed that one of these would "inevitabl[y]" trigger a Kessler effect with no proof.

> something literally 1000x bigger be even more concerning.

Again, this isn't convincing if you don't have the denominator/context. Think about it: you still can't answer how many of these are needed to trigger the Kessler effect.

BTW, "increase by a FACTOR of about 300" != "increase in a RISK FACTOR of over 300"

>>tmvphi+Jb
I know this in the same way that even though I don't know the exact credence to assign the probability of particular bad effects from global warming, I can confidently say that an increase by a factor of 1000 of the CO2 emissions would be a bad thing. This is not because I have done a simulation, but instead my beliefs are based on the assumption that while concerned experts might be wrong in the details, they are probably not wrong with a gap of 3 orders of magnitude.