4 ms·
According to the authors numbers it'll take at least 20,000 launched to put a million satellite's in orbit And that's before you consider the issues of operati
by youngtaff 4mo ago
According to the authors numbers it'll take at least 20,000 launched to put a million satellite's in orbit
And that's before you consider the issues of operating a DC in space
It's just a a load of nonsense
- pfdietz 4mo agoWhy is 20,000 launches a load of nonsense?
- youngtaff 4mo ago20,000 launches is 11 Starship launches a day for 5 years It's an unsustainable rate and even if we do get to that rate it'll wreck the planet
- pfdietz 4mo agoWhy is that unsustainable? You need to present an argument that is more than just "large number! wave hands!" It's just like the arguments used by anti-renewable energy forces here on Earth. "Large number (of PV modules and wind turbines and batteries)! Unpossible!" And no, that launch rate does not "wreck the planet".
- youngtaff 3mo ago> And no, that launch rate does not "wreck the planet". What's the impact of the atmospheric pollution from both launches and the burn of space craft and satellite's burning up on re-rentry?
- pfdietz 3mo agoThe most significant limitation on Starship launches is from injection of water into the stratosphere and mesosphere, but 20,000 launches is far away from that limit.
- dlcarrier 4mo agoWith a max of one million satellites in the constellation, if Space X targets the same 5 year lifespan of its current satellites, that would be 4,000 launches a year. In 2020, Space X had 25 launches, then 31 in 2021, then 61, then 96, then 136, and last year launched 167. That's an average of around 50% more per year. At that rate, to get to the 24x increase needed to launch faster than the constellation can support, they'll only need to keep on that trajectory for eight more years.