4 ms·

It doesn't really seem like a big deal to me. The emissions due to that rocketry is nothing in the grand scale of things. Think of all the emissions that are sp

It doesn't really seem like a big deal to me. The emissions due to that rocketry is nothing in the grand scale of things. Think of all the emissions that are spent globally on maintaining terrestrial telcom infrastructure. 5000 tons of Aluminum? so what? Aluminum is non-toxic as far as I know. Besides, won't these satellites will be completely disintegrated by the time they reach the ground? It's not like they're going to to be crashing into houses and stuff. As for the brightness of the satellites, who cares? Can't you just write a computer program to track the satellites and exclude them from the picture? I can't imagine it's like they're shooting a long exposure on an analog camera. This is like a NIMBY sort of complaint, where you have the opportunity to complain about it because you're aware of the few explicit downsides. Meanwhile all the massive implicit costs of accepting the alternative (terrestrial infrastructure) are swept under the rug. Out of sight- out of mind!

EdwardDiego 4y ago
Nothing is non-toxic if you try hard enough ;) https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=190&toxid=34 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1...
viczsaszbo 4y ago
A study was done on alumina in the atmosphere and 5,000 tons/yr doesn't seem dangerous. The study notes that because of the 3.8 g cm−3 density it falls quickly compared to other particles. The density is much higher than the chlorofluorocarbons that stick around and damage the ozone layer. It assumes ~4,000,000 tons/year that causes 3.7% ozone depletion. 5,000 tons/year might have effects, but it doesn't look like a show stopper in terms of cooling and ozone depletion. Hard to draw firm conclusion since they studied a purposeful geoengineering plan, but it doesn't add up with a sanity check. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11835/2015/acp-15-11835-2015.pdf https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11835/2015/acp-15-118...

EdwardDiego 4y ago

Nothing is non-toxic if you try hard enough ;) https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=190&toxid=34 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=1...

viczsaszbo 4y ago

A study was done on alumina in the atmosphere and 5,000 tons/yr doesn't seem dangerous. The study notes that because of the 3.8 g cm−3 density it falls quickly compared to other particles. The density is much higher than the chlorofluorocarbons that stick around and damage the ozone layer. It assumes ~4,000,000 tons/year that causes 3.7% ozone depletion. 5,000 tons/year might have effects, but it doesn't look like a show stopper in terms of cooling and ozone depletion. Hard to draw firm conclusion since they studied a purposeful geoengineering plan, but it doesn't add up with a sanity check. https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11835/2015/acp-15-11835-2015.pdf https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/15/11835/2015/acp-15-118...