Any journalists want to write an article about all the environmental costs of the more than 10,000 Starlinks that are now in orbit?
-
@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)?@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. -
@otte_homan @akareilly @sundogplanets
this is why i'm here
-
@hundhamm
...aaaand it died from traffic.
@sundogplanets -
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.
@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.
-
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.
@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
-
@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. -
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.
@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. -
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.
@sundogplanets would that also measurably reduce the efficiency of solar panels?
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
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.
-
@michael_w_busch @Becovich Starlink also has higher ambitions concerning internet speed or bandwidth. I think that also requires more satellites, no?
@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.
-
@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.
@sikorski Do you have a reference for that? Would be extremely useful if you can share!
-
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.
@sundogplanets
Once SpaceX causes Kessler Syndrome, making LEO unusable, that will put an end to their Starlink business model for a while. -
E em0nm4stodon@infosec.exchange shared this topic
