4 ms·
Not to ask the dumb question, but what's the tangible environmental impact of having satellites visible at certain during the night in an unpolluted sky that in
by eganist 7y ago
Not to ask the dumb question, but what's the tangible environmental impact of having satellites visible at certain during the night in an unpolluted sky that in-theory burn up when they're decommissioned much like any meteor might?
I don't mean the impact to human projects e.g. astronomy or even to human culture. I mean to the actual environment itself and the life surrounding us, since the argument seems to make the claim that there's a detrimental environmental impact.
> In its reasoning for its categorical exclusion, the FCC states that its actions “have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment and are categorically excluded from environmental processing.” Ryan says that the FCC may have been wrong in this assessment, however. “The FCC has never performed a study showing why commercial satellites deserved to be classified as categorically excluded from review,” he says. “And the evidence shows that these satellites are having an environmental impact. If the FCC were sued over its noncompliance with NEPA, it would likely lose.”
For instance, the obvious environmental impact of this case cited in the article:
> National Institutes of Health [was] defeated by environmental groups on the question of the lawfulness of the agency’s approval of genetically modified bacteria for crops without proper review
because of the unknown risks of engineered genes leaking into the gene pools of their respective organisms and potentially drastically impacting life.
> U.S. Army Corps of Engineers lost a case in which it had approved licenses for gambling barges in Mississippi without proper NEPA review.
Seems easy, substantially increased traffic to the boats has a tangible environmental impact e.g. pollution, littering, etc.
But I fail to see the same argument here... and I do desire to be enlightened. There's probably something extremely simple that's just whooshing over my head.
- Isinlor 7y agoSome animals navigate using stars: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/ Starlink could potentially disrupt that. Most likely it will not, but who knows. One could also argue that satellites that do not fully burn in atmosphere produce waste. From legal perspective, I guess it's hard to argue that there is no impact, if you do not asses the impact. Overall, I don't think there is not much cause for concern for non-human activities. And even for humans it's about astronomy and moving dots on night sky outside urban areas.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoArtificial lighting on the surface has a far greater impact on wildlife.
- cecja 7y agoAtombombs are worse than cluster bombs so we should use them.
- nolok 7y agoBut that doesn't say anything about the impact (or lack thereof) of StarLink on wildlife.
- arcticfox 7y agoIt does say something about a precedent though. I like protecting the environment, but the proposed scenario seems pretty implausible to me.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- davedx 7y agoHow do you know for sure if you don't do an impact assessment?
- joncrane 7y agoImpact assessments are generally contracted out via RFP. As a government contractor myself, I have no confidence that a random environmental impact assessment has any semblance of reality to it. It's a crapshoot as far as which contractor is selected and if they focus on the right factors and come to the right conclusion.
- TheDesolate0 7y agoHa! You didn't even read the paper you linked. Found the redditor. Starlight, not stars. Starlight on a moonless night, as in general illumination. So, the satellites would help the critters you refer to. The only hazards these satellites will provide are. 1. more space junk (hazard to critters IN space) 2. more earth junk an pollution when the fall back down. As for astronomy, we need to move that outside the atmosphere anyhow.
- hoseja 7y agoYes, it's extremely simple. Some people will grasp at anything to criticize Musk's enterprises. They really hate him.
- dbtx 7y agoMaybe they're like me and they really only really hate being lied to.
- Dylan16807 7y agoWere you lied to about anything even halfway connected to the environmental impact of satellites? If you were lied to about something unrelated, then using that as justification to complain here counts as 'grasping at anything to criticize'.
- dbtx 7y agoThe people "you" elected and the people they appointed are all doing their jobs and everything is going to be Oh Kay™ ...ever since I was too young to vote. Now I'm a little unhappy about the Hanford Site and about tetraethyl lead, for example. I know that has nothing to do with satellites.
- pg_is_a_butt 7y ago> There's probably something extremely simple that's just whooshing over my head. You set up your telescope for a 10 hour shot with multiple long exposures... many of your shots will include these relatively bright and numerous satellites... destroying your work. The problem is literally whooshing over your head. Then there is the obvious problem of spacejunk... anything impacting these satellites and throwing debris into higher orbits could cause chain reactions, rendering space travel of any kind non-viable.