[flagged]
No, not because of Elon. But I can see how you think so.
One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
71–80 of 347 posts
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
0.018% of the worlds population have starlink subscriptions. Yet 100% put up with the atmospheric pollution of a lot of mass being plasmified on the way back to earth, the light pollution, the lack of other services delivered with that spectrum, etc. One might ask how the 99.982% of us will be compensated.
A single terminal could serve an entire African village. It's also serving use cases in the Ukraine war, ships at sea, Antarctic research stations, numerous aerospace and military use cases, and so on. DTC is provide texting and emergency services to countless people who might need it in an emergancy, like we saw in North Carolina. Last and most importantly, Starlink exists is to create revenue for SpaceX and to fund…
> The value to humanity of Starship succeeding at its goals is extremely high.
If humanity agreed with this statement, humanity would fund the program directly through investment, donations or taxes, the same way we fund roads and schools which we also value highly.
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
0.018% of the worlds population have starlink subscriptions. Yet 100% put up with the atmospheric pollution of a lot of mass being plasmified on the way back to earth, the light pollution, the lack of other services delivered with that spectrum, etc. One might ask how the 99.982% of us will be compensated.
Personally, I've never suffered from satellite plasma or light pollution from satellites , or spectrum allocation. I suspect most of the 100% are like me.
Unless you don't breathe air, you can't make the first statement with absolute certainty.
"Workin' in these coal mines ain't hurt me none no-how."
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to see stats how many people got new connections via traditional infrastructure. I bet that number is much higher, probably even an order of magnitude higher. This is HN, so I should probably look for the data my self... EDIT: In 2024 global internet usage grew from 5.3 billion users to 5.5 billion. Starlink grew by only a 1/100 of that in absolute terms, from 2 million users to 4 million over the same t…
> In 2024 global internet usage grew from 5.3 billion users to 5.5 Starlink grew by a similar absolute amount, from 2 million users to 4 million over the same time period, Is this some AI answer or did you foobar this math by a factor of 100?
Whoops, a standard off by a factor of 100 error.
StarLink got 2 million new subscribers in 2024. Meanwhile the internet got 200 million new users. So even if every new StarLink subscriber would be a new internet user (which is obviously not true) they would still only account for 1% of new internet users. The real number is off course much much much lower.
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's postulated that the high aluminum content of satellites (for perspective, Bennu samples are only 1% Al), as oxidized Al2O3 particles in the stratosphere, catalyze chemistry that destroys ozone. But that's far from a quantitatively meaningful problem, at the current scale. This source[0] says satellite reentries are about about 12% of the space industry's contribution to ozone depletion (the big one is chlorine f…
>0.01% of anthropogenic ozone depletion The sheer percentage increase in stratospheric AlO is still alarming.[0] Satellite reentries in 2022 (ie mostly pre-megaconstellation) were already raising stratospheric AlO levels by 29.5% above normal levels (with satellites adding 'only' 17 t/year), but megaconstellations could raise that to ~480% above natural levels (360 t/year). This isn't a rounding error, it's a non-tri…
> Satellite reentries in 2022 (mostly pre-megaconstellation) were already raising stratospheric AlO levels by 29.5% above normal levels
Those findings are simulated, not observed. Hence "potential."
> it's a non-trivial change in chemical composition over the entire globe, and effecting a complex and poorly-understood part of the climate system. What could go wrong?
Perhaps a lot. Perhaps not much. It's a good question to study. But if this is an issue, it's solvable--carbon composite satellite structures could use a boost in demand and funding.
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s one single estimate, and the problem is much more nuanced. For example, Starlink satellites orbit so low, that even if every single one of them collides and becomes dust, it will all decay and burn up in a matter of months, a couple years at most. The debris cannot physically move to higher orbits to affect other “normal” satellites, though it might impair launches. Conversely, collisions at much higher geosyn…
> For example, Starlink satellites orbit so low, that even if every single one of them collides and becomes dust, it will all decay and burn up in a matter of months, a couple years at most. That is way too long. The threshold we are speaking of cannot allow any fragments, because they start chain reaction and destroy more satellites. And there is always one which is on the highest level. What if that gets destroyed?
> threshold we are speaking of cannot allow any fragments, because they start chain reaction and destroy more satellites
Kessler cascades are localised to specific orbits. In low-earth orbit, they're a problem for a few years.
They're going to be annoying. But not catastrophic.
> there is always one which is on the highest level
Highest level?
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#77Short lifetime and quick re-entry is a great feature of vLEO constellations. No long term space junk. Compare that to MEO or GEO where sats are there pretty much forever (hundreds to thousands of years). Or even high LEO with many tens of years.
Yes, it is much better to error on the side of losing satellites, versus making future space travel impossible.
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Starlink's orbits are so low that everything deorbits automatically. The satellites need to actively work to stay up. That means no Kessler syndrome there. How many you can fit depends on the available technology. It should eventually be a lot more than 70K just in those low orbits... and still leave plenty of space for rocket launches and returns to thread their way in between them.
> Starlink's orbits are so low that everything deorbits automatically. It is enough if it goes one round around. They can make a cascading effect which can destroy tens of satellites at once, and few fragments are enough. And closer to earth you are, less space there is. They can't all orbit on exactly the same level. There is always one which is on slightly higher level.
> closer to earth you are, less space there is
Humans are bad at intuiting exponents. There is roughly 200x more volume in LEO than there is between the ground and cruising altitude. Plane changes, moreover, take a lot of energy--you aren't going to get enough energy out of a collision to pollute nearby orbits.
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could we say the same about flights to Hawaii? Small number of people take lavish vacations, everyone else gets the pollution. It's good to look at the costs vs. benefits of everything, but satellite networks are way far down on my list of concern (and I do some astrophotography).
We should. A global pollution tax would shake out a lot of problems. A strong and trustworthy global democracy to enforce it, and to provide for the general welfare of everyone currently trapped in car-based cities... Is left as a simple exercise to the reader
> A global pollution tax would shake out a lot of problems
There is a reason these taxes are popular among rich countries and opposed by emerging ones.
Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
A single terminal could serve an entire African village. It's also serving use cases in the Ukraine war, ships at sea, Antarctic research stations, numerous aerospace and military use cases, and so on. DTC is provide texting and emergency services to countless people who might need it in an emergancy, like we saw in North Carolina. Last and most importantly, Starlink exists is to create revenue for SpaceX and to fund…
> The value to humanity of Starship succeeding at its goals is extremely high. Starship to orbit sounds useful, but Starship to Mars is near useless. If that's what rich people want to spend their money on, go nuts.
> Starship to orbit sounds useful, but Starship to Mars is near useless.
I strongly disagree.
If "Starship to Mars" is a possibility, then so is "Starship to the asteroid belt". It's very close to "Starship to the asteroid belt, capture asteroid, return to Earth orbit" - and that's very close to orbital mining of metals that are rare and valuable on Earth.