March 8th story OP?
Some previous discussion:
A million new SpaceX satellites will destroy the night sky
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47598415
Part of this announcement:
xAI joins SpaceX
SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
41–50 of 155 posts
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#42> Most people likely don’t think about how often they use satellite communications. But that Instagram post you made? You used a satellite. This article seems to confuse Starlink with ordinary cellular communications
They also might confuse Starlink with GPS satellites which are completely different things.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
And getting them down. Or allowing them to come down on their own... I doubt that is entirely environmental impact free.
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.
Totally sidestepping the issue and refuting the words.
Regardless of how they fall, they still fall on the planet.
And this still ignores the massive atmospheric pollution of chemical rocket launch.
Space elevator would be a big help with launch, but the trash is still dropped on the ground, or in the ocean, in the end.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#44Let me fix your title: SpaceX wants investors to think that they will be able to launch millions of satellites.
SpaceX has consistently launched ~90% of the mass to orbit for the whole planet Earth over the last several years[1][2]. There's no one else who could more credibly make such a claim.
1: https://officechai.com/stories/spacex-launched-85-of-all-glo... 2: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/05/spacex-launching-87-90...
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
And getting them down. Or allowing them to come down on their own... I doubt that is entirely environmental impact free.
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.
A million satellites isn't going to be 100 tons; even if they're all on the small side, say 100 kg each, the total is 100,000 tons, therefore by your numbers if they last on orbit for 3 years they'd double to triple the mass rate burning up on aero entry. I think SpaceX actually talking about 1-10 tons/satellite making this more like 10-100x if they last 3 years, but between AI hallucinations getting and Musk's increasing disconnect from reality (let alone political toxicity) this is basically irrelevant. SpaceX won't reach these higher masses to orbit spread over this number of satellites regardless.
Aggravatingly, I have seen research estimating that even the much smaller number of satellites currently in orbit is already enough to be unstable with regard to a Kessler cascade, and any question about the realism of Musk's goals from finance and engineering limits is clearly not enough to prevent this kind of scenario. Which may result in other governments interfering with his ketamine supply to make sure their satellites aren't caught up in one.
Simplest helpful thing for the Kessler problem is "just"* have fewer larger satellites, and if Starship actually delivers the launch costs necessary to make space-based data centres worth the bother vs. just buying some cheap desert land, I anticipate Musk getting managed upwards by his staff in this regard.
* nothing in space is "just"
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#46Earlier 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.
Totally sidestepping the issue and refuting the words. Regardless of how they fall, they still fall on the planet. And this still ignores the massive atmospheric pollution of chemical rocket launch. Space elevator would be a big help with launch, but the trash is still dropped on the ground, or in the ocean, in the end.
We're only starting to see and understand the damage. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/... https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-ar...
Leave it to the chainsaw man who has already become the millenium's worst killer, to wreak yet more sad havoc and ruin upon the sphere. What absolute trash, what a mad frivolous pointless ambition meant only to crowd out anyone from thinking of this enormous mass stupidity, destruction. Taking up/taking over of space, for no clear stated reason or value except to steal from us all, to deny & claim from the rest. Madness. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-1...
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#47There 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.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#48Let me fix your title: SpaceX wants investors to think that they will be able to launch millions of satellites.
SpaceX has consistently launched ~90% of the mass to orbit for the whole planet Earth over the last several years[1][2]. There's no one else who could more credibly make such a claim. 1: https://officechai.com/stories/spacex-launched-85-of-all-glo... 2: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/05/spacex-launching-87-90...
They launched a grand total of ~10k starlink satellite, there is a long road between 10k and a million.
Musk would be "the most credible" at claiming he'll have 1000 trillion dollar by 2050, it doesn't mean it's credible at all.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#49> ... data centres that won’t have an environmental impact here on Earth. Really? I wonder how they are going to get them up there without rocket launches?
And getting them down. Or allowing them to come down on their own... I doubt that is entirely environmental impact free.
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 feel smug being a nay-sayer to anything ambitious?
Re: SpaceX wants to launch a million satellites
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally sidestepping the issue and refuting the words. Regardless of how they fall, they still fall on the planet. And this still ignores the massive atmospheric pollution of chemical rocket launch. Space elevator would be a big help with launch, but the trash is still dropped on the ground, or in the ocean, in the end.
We're only starting to see and understand the damage. https://www.space.com/space-exploration/launches-spacecraft/... https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-ar... Leave it to the chainsaw man who has already become the millenium's worst killer, to wreak yet more sad havoc and ruin upon the sphere. What absolute trash, what a mad frivolous pointless ambition meant only to crowd out anyone from think…
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.