Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.
This kind of thinking is exactly what led to the ozone hole in the first place. Let's actually investigate our assumptions this time.
Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
11–20 of 42 posts
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX wants their Starlink constellation to crack 100,000, and there are plenty of competitors lining up who will surely want to have "the biggest and the best" at some point. None of those sats stay up terribly long, so you'll have a constant cadence of launches and reentries, both of which are a risk for their impact on the climate system, atmosphere, etc. A largely unstudied risk, and once which will almost certa…
100 tons of whatever enter the Earth every single day. Are you freaking out about that?
Those are rocks, which are not made from the same stuff as satellites. (Also, the article says it's 44 tons, and other sources suggest around 50 at most.) In any case, I don't think anyone here is "freaking out", I just think this issue merits investigation.
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#13> However, the rapidly increasing numbers of launches to low Earth orbit now threaten to increase the levels of space junk reentering the atmosphere.
Isn't it not space junk if it is burning up in the atmosphere? Kinda conflating two different concerns here that are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#14So... We still don't know if aluminum on satellites can be a problem or not.
Yes, it's nice that failed experiments get reported. But why another press article claiming the problem that this one research has been failing for a decade to show that exists?
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#15Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.
This kind of thinking is exactly what led to the ozone hole in the first place. Let's actually investigate our assumptions this time.
No, there was no a priori evidence when the big "fuss" around the ozone happened. I happen to agree with it. Why spend millions of choice your choice of first world currency to worry about 0.000000000001% of the pollution the earth, our earth is facing.
Perhaps you're not living in the same world as I, but I've both experienced the wettest and driest year on record.
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#16> However, the rapidly increasing numbers of launches to low Earth orbit now threaten to increase the levels of space junk reentering the atmosphere. Isn't it not space junk if it is burning up in the atmosphere? Kinda conflating two different concerns here that are somewhat mutually exclusive.
It's space junk and then it enters the atmosphere and burns up, I don't think it's too hard to figure out.
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good catch. I doubt it's even a rounding error right now, but with the space market undergoing a rather rapid growth (good thing!), it's a good time to start tracking this and hopefully address before it turns into a problem.
>hopefully address before it turns into a problem. Ron Howard's voice "They didn't." But in all seriousness, there will be zero stomach for limiting launches for the ozone layer. I'm calling it now. Group 1 won't believe it's a problem. Group 2 will say it's just lefty elitists trying to ruin the economy. Group 3 will say there's no such thing as satellites. Check back in 40 years. I bet I'm right.
It's funny, one of the benchmarks I've used when trying to decide when things went off the rails was that banning CFCs was a relatively uncontroversial thing in the 1990s. Now, I agree with your pessimism.
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#18> However, the rapidly increasing numbers of launches to low Earth orbit now threaten to increase the levels of space junk reentering the atmosphere. Isn't it not space junk if it is burning up in the atmosphere? Kinda conflating two different concerns here that are somewhat mutually exclusive.
It's space junk and then it enters the atmosphere and burns up, I don't think it's too hard to figure out.
If it turns out the junk truly disintegrates without any significant affect to the atmosphere then GP is saying that it’s not actually a problem and not actually “junk”. Space junk usually refers to stuff junking up things in the same way a rusted out sedan ruins a yard.
If the sedan disappeared it wouldn’t really be considered junk. If the sedan disappeared but left behind a puddle of poison the label would still apply.
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#19What would be the number of reentries in the near future? 5-20 satellites daily? At first glance, it seems negligible. On the hand, given the intentional nature if disposable low-orbit, 20 more than ideal.
Why do you consider the ideal point for this question absolute 0 zero reentries rather than the minimal number of reentries that don’t cause damage to the atmosphere?
Re: Plasma Tunnels Reveal How Dying Satellites Fall to Earth
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 tons of whatever enter the Earth every single day. Are you freaking out about that?
Those are rocks, which are not made from the same stuff as satellites. (Also, the article says it's 44 tons, and other sources suggest around 50 at most.) In any case, I don't think anyone here is "freaking out", I just think this issue merits investigation.
I’m not GP but your original comment did not come across as neutral