3 ms·

I dislike Elon Musk as much as anyone but I think it's becoming clear that starlink could turn out to be a very good idea. What I haven't seen anyone do and so

I dislike Elon Musk as much as anyone but I think it's becoming clear that starlink could turn out to be a very good idea. What I haven't seen anyone do and something I'd be very interested to see is a comparison of the relative environmental costs of so many starlink launches in contrast to the building and upkeep of last mile connections to the backbone.

runarberg 5y ago
idk. It could turn out to be a very bad idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome). And it still hasn’t proven it self to be better then traditional infrastructure. The last mile connection problem can much easier be solved with a 5G tower then a constellation of satellites.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  Additionally, I'm not sure how great it will be for air quality if we have thousands and thousands of satellites burning up in the atmosphere over the next few decades. I certainly don't want to be breathing in vaporized satellite ash. Your point about 5G is well made.
  - anchpop 5y ago
    It's probably not zero, but I imagine the effect on air quality is completely miniscule compared to things like millions of ICE cars driving around or the wildfires on the west coast. Additionally I think they burn up in the upper atmosphere, which makes it less likely for the particles to end up in your breathing air (compared to cars which emit their waste at ankle level right outside your doorstep)
    - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
      Also the rocket used to launch each satellite has ejected more than 20x the mass of its payload as burnt rocket fuel by the time it reaches orbit.
      - hungryforcodes 5y ago
        Remember I said over decades (60 years?). The space industry looks to expand by one or two orders of magnitude during that time.
  - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
    Is that ash in any way different than the many thousands of tons of meteoroids and dust that enters from space each year?
  - relativ575 5y ago
    25 million meteors enter the atmosphere every day! Almost all of them are burnt up. You're certainly breathing "vaporized space object" ash constantly. The danger of satellites burning up to air quality is negligible. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec18.html http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec18.html
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      OK I searched the article and there was nothing in there about air quality or the environment. The fact is you simply don't know. And of course I am talking about over decades, like 30-60 years. It's a question fortunately that's being pondered: https://eos.org/features/the-coming-surge-of-rocket-emissions https://eos.org/features/the-coming-surge-of-rocket-emission...
      - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
        What claim is it that you're making? If the claim is that an increase in rocket launches will be detrimental to the environment and air quality I would agree. The claim however that satellites re-entering the atmosphere will have a real impact on this is almost certainly false and isn't backed up by the article you linked.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  These satellites are low enough that they will deorbit themselves within 5 years without periodic boosting

runarberg 5y ago

idk. It could turn out to be a very bad idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome). And it still hasn’t proven it self to be better then traditional infrastructure. The last mile connection problem can much easier be solved with a 5G tower then a constellation of satellites.

hungryforcodes 5y ago
Additionally, I'm not sure how great it will be for air quality if we have thousands and thousands of satellites burning up in the atmosphere over the next few decades. I certainly don't want to be breathing in vaporized satellite ash. Your point about 5G is well made.
- anchpop 5y ago
  It's probably not zero, but I imagine the effect on air quality is completely miniscule compared to things like millions of ICE cars driving around or the wildfires on the west coast. Additionally I think they burn up in the upper atmosphere, which makes it less likely for the particles to end up in your breathing air (compared to cars which emit their waste at ankle level right outside your doorstep)
  - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
    Also the rocket used to launch each satellite has ejected more than 20x the mass of its payload as burnt rocket fuel by the time it reaches orbit.
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      Remember I said over decades (60 years?). The space industry looks to expand by one or two orders of magnitude during that time.
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  Is that ash in any way different than the many thousands of tons of meteoroids and dust that enters from space each year?
- relativ575 5y ago
  25 million meteors enter the atmosphere every day! Almost all of them are burnt up. You're certainly breathing "vaporized space object" ash constantly. The danger of satellites burning up to air quality is negligible. http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec18.html http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec18.html
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    OK I searched the article and there was nothing in there about air quality or the environment. The fact is you simply don't know. And of course I am talking about over decades, like 30-60 years. It's a question fortunately that's being pondered: https://eos.org/features/the-coming-surge-of-rocket-emissions https://eos.org/features/the-coming-surge-of-rocket-emission...
    - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
      What claim is it that you're making? If the claim is that an increase in rocket launches will be detrimental to the environment and air quality I would agree. The claim however that satellites re-entering the atmosphere will have a real impact on this is almost certainly false and isn't backed up by the article you linked.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
These satellites are low enough that they will deorbit themselves within 5 years without periodic boosting