|
|
|
|
|
by WastingMyTime89
1349 days ago
|
|
> Your point about "legitimacy" is right on. In data visualization the goal is finding the most useful (least misleading) transform of the data, not raw fidelity. I made no point about legitimacy. The fact remains. It is a real time visualisation. It’s interesting to consider what’s currently flying above. It’s not a collision estimation tool. > Bingo. The "scariness" comes from (where else?) the collision probability, and our estimate thereof. There is nothing scary about the probability of collision however. Even when you take the very large safety margin the monitoring organisations like to take probability is very low. |
|
Agreed, but then why did you say it gets less "scary" when you realize the size is exaggerated here?
What else could you be scared of, if you're not (implicitly) using the visualization to estimate collision probability?
Some sort of thalassephobia for giant space objects, perhaps?
>probability is very low
Now keep rolling those dice every day for hundreds or thousands of years. Thousands of dice, for thousands of objects.
People are historically bad at imagining that (just like we're bad at large distances), which is why compressing the duration is misleading.
Risk = probability * cost. The cost of collisions (both the immediate cost and the long-term cost from additional debris generation) is very high.
>There is nothing scary about the probability of collision
If you watch the video I linked earlier, it explains how we're already past the "tipping point." Even if all launches cease (spoiler: they won't), the debris problem would continue to get worse.
Maybe that isn't a scary situation to you, but it is to me.