151–155 of 155 posts
Who is paying for all this? Starlink revenue? I don't think so. To 100x what they've done over the last ten years and also fund it with money they're not being paid by others is implausible. They've got money, but they don't have THAT much money. They'd need to significantly juice up the whole rest of their business to not just be substantially more profitable, but also launch far more payloads. Does that much demand…
isn't the IPO a way to get tons of money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LEO satellites come down on their own in a few months/years. 100 tons of metal burning in the atmosphere seems a lot, but it's barely the total mass of meteorites falling in 24-48 hours, actually.
Misleading, because satellites are made of different materials to meteors. Satellites are the dominant injection source of 24 elements into the atmosphere, including Al, Cu, Ti, Nb, Co, Zn, Sn, Pb, Ag, Li, V, Hf, W, Ge, Mo, Zr, B, and Ba. This list includes many transition metals, whose catalytic effects on ozone and cloud nucleation are mostly unknown. Copper in particular is a well-known catalyst for the destructio…
There is an upside: this may be the shortest route to eliminating any future launches: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome Sorry Buck Rogers fan bois, should have left this fantasy in the 1950s...
Mentioning Kessler syndrome, especially in the case of Starlink LEO satellites, is the classic midwit signal.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/kessler-syndrome-space-debris
> ...space junk orbiting between 400 and 1,000 kilometers—where most low Earth satellites operate—is already unstable. And between 520 and 1,000 km, the researchers found, debris concentrations are at or near levels that might sustain runaway growth.
With regard to starlink:
> Starlink satellites orbit between 540 and 570 km altitude in multiple orbital shells
I'm sure it'll be fine once there are a million 8-/
I would have to say, elon fanbois are the most classic midwits...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Must has clearly stated the reason and value. You know that. You're just trying to be wrong because the internet told you you'll be a good person for hating him.
Giant space data centers, up where what couple particles there are bouncing around are already 1000 degrees. It seems like an incredible amount of pollution to make, to go lord over everyone's heads. This isn't a plan that has any empathy for the earth or reason, except to just deny everyone else access, to burn as much rocket fuel as conceivably possible. So no one else can. Just go build some terrestrial solar, ple…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects? Are you all just too old to enjoy the thought of an amazing future that's better than today? Or are you too brainwashed by the negativity in the media and think disasters are the only things that can happen? Or are you just bitter about life and can't have any hope? Or do you just fe…
> Why are so many people just desperate to imagine environmental, economic, or social harm from any new technology or ambitious projects? Rockets aren't new technology and they are not imagining the environmental harm. It has been known for a long time. It is just that with only ~300 launches per year (and about 35000 launches ever) the harm has not risen to the level of something that has to be limited. A million da…