Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit?

Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
76 Posts 62 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

    Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

    Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

    SpaceX is truly awful.

    edithmair1@social.tchncs.deE This user is from outside of this forum
    edithmair1@social.tchncs.deE This user is from outside of this forum
    edithmair1@social.tchncs.de
    wrote last edited by
    #62

    @sundogplanets

    Not to forget the pollution! Burning up in the athmosphere does not mean disappearing.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

      Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

      Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

      SpaceX is truly awful.

      bayo@me.dmB This user is from outside of this forum
      bayo@me.dmB This user is from outside of this forum
      bayo@me.dm
      wrote last edited by
      #63

      @sundogplanets When satellites reenter, they don't cleanly vaporize, they ablate, releasing aluminum oxide and other metallic compounds into the upper stratosphere. Research has found measurable concentrations of satellite-derived metals at altitudes where they didn't previously exist. The long-term effects on stratospheric chemistry, ozone dynamics, and potentially cloud formation are not well understood and critically, they're not being studied at anything close to the pace of deployment.

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • joe_vinegar@mastodon.bida.imJ joe_vinegar@mastodon.bida.im

        @drewtowler @sundogplanets I'm sympathetic with you. Makes sense from your personal viewpoint. I've two doubts.
        Bad take: does it make sense to pollute the atmosphere at global scale to bring connectivity in rural areas, if we balance the improved quality of life of the few benefiting against literally the rest of mankind (to be specist)? An utilitarian and an individualist would have no doubts. I have a preference too but I don't think it's ok to abandon rural areas and minority conditions in general.
        So, the second doubt:
        how much would it cost to bring 5G equivalent connectivity even to remote places? Is it really more expensive than the satellite system? Even without accounting for the negative externalities? And accounting for them? and even if it were, wouldn't it be the only ethical choice (albeit expensive)?

        drewtowler@mas.toD This user is from outside of this forum
        drewtowler@mas.toD This user is from outside of this forum
        drewtowler@mas.to
        wrote last edited by
        #64

        @joe_vinegar @sundogplanets First point, it's definitely not OK to abandon rural areas, in my view it's about time they were given special focus after so many years of neglect - so I *think* we agree on that one.
        Second point, I have no idea, but when you live where I do, it would require a lot of helicopters to place a hell of a lot of towers. The hills and valleys here are more crinkled than used aluminium foil, and communities are tiny and isolated, sometimes with access only by horse.

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • saltywizard@beige.partyS This user is from outside of this forum
          saltywizard@beige.partyS This user is from outside of this forum
          saltywizard@beige.party
          wrote last edited by
          #65

          @otte_homan @akareilly @sundogplanets

          this is why i'm here

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • hundhamm@muenchen.socialH hundhamm@muenchen.social

            @sundogplanets
            Already done:
            https://magazin.tu-braunschweig.de/en/m-post/burned-up-satellite-debris-could-deplete-ozone-layer/

            momo@social.linux.pizzaM This user is from outside of this forum
            momo@social.linux.pizzaM This user is from outside of this forum
            momo@social.linux.pizza
            wrote last edited by
            #66

            @hundhamm
            ...aaaand it died from traffic. 😅
            @sundogplanets

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

              Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

              Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

              SpaceX is truly awful.

              aimeemaroux@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
              aimeemaroux@mastodon.socialA This user is from outside of this forum
              aimeemaroux@mastodon.social
              wrote last edited by
              #67

              @sundogplanets I'd do it in a heartbeat but I'm a freelance writer and would have to pitch it to newspapers. Still, I'll consider it. I've seen the night sky up in the mountains 15 years ago and quite recently and it is such an awful contrast already.

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

                Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

                SpaceX is truly awful.

                capnthommo@c.imC This user is from outside of this forum
                capnthommo@c.imC This user is from outside of this forum
                capnthommo@c.im
                wrote last edited by
                #68

                @sundogplanets like throwing a boxful of knives and axes high in the air and hoping they don't hit you on the way back down. With the added joy of the pollutants liberated when many of them burn up on re-entry

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • hundhamm@muenchen.socialH hundhamm@muenchen.social

                  @sundogplanets
                  Already done:
                  https://magazin.tu-braunschweig.de/en/m-post/burned-up-satellite-debris-could-deplete-ozone-layer/

                  nom@mk.spook.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  nom@mk.spook.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
                  nom@mk.spook.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #69

                  @hundhamm@muenchen.social @sundogplanets@mastodon.social The WWW model is silly. I don't need 25ms access except during occasional calls, which can be handled terrestrially.

                  Further, I have storage and RAM. Realtime terrestrial broadcast was fine but if you're doing digital data from space "it might as well come from the moon," while cheeky, doesn't seem to be a problem.

                  In other words, it's ok if it takes seconds for my netflix video to start. Maybe even minutes if my expectations / cost were set that way.

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                    Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

                    Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

                    SpaceX is truly awful.

                    werdenfels@troet.cafeW This user is from outside of this forum
                    werdenfels@troet.cafeW This user is from outside of this forum
                    werdenfels@troet.cafe
                    wrote last edited by
                    #70

                    @sundogplanets not only that. It starts with the launch of the rocket:
                    Lots kerosine is burnt.
                    The second stage burns up in the atmosphere.
                    All that burns up in the atmosphere stays there for quite some time and influences the atmosphere.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                      Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

                      Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

                      SpaceX is truly awful.

                      bicycletting@mastodon.ieB This user is from outside of this forum
                      bicycletting@mastodon.ieB This user is from outside of this forum
                      bicycletting@mastodon.ie
                      wrote last edited by
                      #71

                      @sundogplanets would that also measurably reduce the efficiency of solar panels?

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                        Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

                        Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

                        SpaceX is truly awful.

                        sikorski@oldbytes.spaceS This user is from outside of this forum
                        sikorski@oldbytes.spaceS This user is from outside of this forum
                        sikorski@oldbytes.space
                        wrote last edited by
                        #72

                        @sundogplanets It is not the metal elements that pose a problem when entering the atmosphere, but the lenses and laser elements that were supposed to provide communication via optical path are resistant to the temperatures generated during atmospheric entry.

                        sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                          Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

                          Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

                          SpaceX is truly awful.

                          happyborg@fosstodon.orgH This user is from outside of this forum
                          happyborg@fosstodon.orgH This user is from outside of this forum
                          happyborg@fosstodon.org
                          wrote last edited by
                          #73

                          @sundogplanets

                          The good thing about Starlink satellites is that they don't stay up there long.

                          The bad thing about Starlink satellites is that they don't stay up there long.

                          #Starlink #environment #ElonMusk

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S skaphle@social.tchncs.de

                            @michael_w_busch @Becovich Starlink also has higher ambitions concerning internet speed or bandwidth. I think that also requires more satellites, no?

                            georgweissenbacher@fediscience.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                            georgweissenbacher@fediscience.orgG This user is from outside of this forum
                            georgweissenbacher@fediscience.org
                            wrote last edited by
                            #74

                            @skaphle @Becovich as @michael_w_busch writes, the problem is not necessarily bandwidth - satellites can provide a very high bandwidth - it is latency. Satellites in geostationary orbit, for instance, have a latency of 1/4 of a second. That’s why Musk’s satellites need to fly low. But that reduces the area they can cover.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • sikorski@oldbytes.spaceS sikorski@oldbytes.space

                              @sundogplanets It is not the metal elements that pose a problem when entering the atmosphere, but the lenses and laser elements that were supposed to provide communication via optical path are resistant to the temperatures generated during atmospheric entry.

                              sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                              sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS This user is from outside of this forum
                              sundogplanets@mastodon.social
                              wrote last edited by
                              #75

                              @sikorski Do you have a reference for that? Would be extremely useful if you can share!

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • sundogplanets@mastodon.socialS sundogplanets@mastodon.social

                                Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit? All I'm seeing are breathless articles mindlessly worshiping That Awful Billionaire for crossing the 10,000 satellite mark.

                                Every single one of those will come down in an uncontrolled reentry. That's a lot of metal in the atmosphere, and a lot of dice-rolling to see if any more pieces will make it to the ground.

                                SpaceX is truly awful.

                                brouhaha@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                                brouhaha@mastodon.socialB This user is from outside of this forum
                                brouhaha@mastodon.social
                                wrote last edited by
                                #76

                                @sundogplanets
                                Once SpaceX causes Kessler Syndrome, making LEO unusable, that will put an end to their Starlink business model for a while.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0
                                • em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchangeE em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
                                Reply
                                • Reply as topic
                                Log in to reply
                                • Oldest to Newest
                                • Newest to Oldest
                                • Most Votes


                                • Login

                                • Login or register to search.
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Categories
                                • Recent
                                • Tags
                                • Popular
                                • World
                                • Users
                                • Groups