4 ms·

At what point are people going to have a conversation about all the pollution and the consequences of so many satellites burning up (metals and other toxic stuf

by baranul 3mo ago

At what point are people going to have a conversation about all the pollution and the consequences of so many satellites burning up (metals and other toxic stuff) in the atmosphere and fragments falling wherever. 100k... how much can we keep putting up and let keep falling around the world? Multiple other companies and countries want to do the same as SpaceX.

maipen 3mo ago
[flagged]
- downrightmike 3mo ago
  Populations are far below replacement. Degrowth is assured.
  - ACCount37 3mo ago
    Populations may drop, but why would you want quality of life to remain constant?
    - shiandow 3mo ago
      You'd rather lower quality of land life to enable growth? Or were you not responding to the argument that avoiding pollution is typical degrowth talk?
      - ACCount37 3mo ago
        No. I'm saying that if the population is set to fall, we can crank resource spend per person all the way up, and enable growth that way. With a little side benefit of QoL improvements. Which requires a massive jump in labor productivity, mind. But if the optimistic takes on AI are right, such a thing is not impossible.
        downrightmike 3mo ago
        We are already cranking the per person spend way up, that's why we have a trillionaire. How we do it matters and the matters that be won't allow anything other than Neo-feudalism
- mparramon 3mo ago
  Absolutely. Degrowith is the guilt-fueled poverty mind virus. Abundance, friends. Nothing stops us.
- lukeify 3mo ago
  I guess the Montreal Protocol was "degrowth talk" for you too, huh?
- kamov 3mo ago
  100k satellites is kind of insane, why not a smaller number of satellites which are more powerful, like the satellites from AST Spacemobile? It should be possible to launch smaller number of satellites without sacrificing progress
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
alden5 3mo ago
The thing that's also not grasped is because of the low earth orbit nature of these satellites they eventually succumb to drag and only have a useful lifespan of ~5 years. Using that and 100,000 satellites that means the constellation will take ~54 satellites/day to maintain, they're also quoted as being 2 tons which about the weight of a Sedan/SUV. Reframing it it's like if Comcast had to crash 54 supercars into a brick wall everyday to keep their infrastructure up and all that material also got dispersed throughout the atmosphere. SpaceX is already making/launching ~10 satellites a day and metaphorically crashing them into a brick wall, the wall is just ~5 years away. Humans have been around for a long time but also don't live very long, but to sustain this internet infrastructure for an average person's lifespan it'd take ~16 replacement cycles. In terms of human civilization timescales this infrastructure cant/won't be sustainable for very long. Personal opinion but I think we should figure out how to run network cables to remote places better, we managed to do it with gas and electricity.

by baranul 3mo ago

maipen 3mo ago

[flagged]

downrightmike 3mo ago
Populations are far below replacement. Degrowth is assured.
- ACCount37 3mo ago
  Populations may drop, but why would you want quality of life to remain constant?
  - shiandow 3mo ago
    You'd rather lower quality of land life to enable growth? Or were you not responding to the argument that avoiding pollution is typical degrowth talk?
    - ACCount37 3mo ago
      No. I'm saying that if the population is set to fall, we can crank resource spend per person all the way up, and enable growth that way. With a little side benefit of QoL improvements. Which requires a massive jump in labor productivity, mind. But if the optimistic takes on AI are right, such a thing is not impossible.
      - downrightmike 3mo ago
        We are already cranking the per person spend way up, that's why we have a trillionaire. How we do it matters and the matters that be won't allow anything other than Neo-feudalism
mparramon 3mo ago
Absolutely. Degrowith is the guilt-fueled poverty mind virus. Abundance, friends. Nothing stops us.
lukeify 3mo ago
I guess the Montreal Protocol was "degrowth talk" for you too, huh?
kamov 3mo ago
100k satellites is kind of insane, why not a smaller number of satellites which are more powerful, like the satellites from AST Spacemobile? It should be possible to launch smaller number of satellites without sacrificing progress

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

alden5 3mo ago

The thing that's also not grasped is because of the low earth orbit nature of these satellites they eventually succumb to drag and only have a useful lifespan of ~5 years. Using that and 100,000 satellites that means the constellation will take ~54 satellites/day to maintain, they're also quoted as being 2 tons which about the weight of a Sedan/SUV. Reframing it it's like if Comcast had to crash 54 supercars into a brick wall everyday to keep their infrastructure up and all that material also got dispersed throughout the atmosphere. SpaceX is already making/launching ~10 satellites a day and metaphorically crashing them into a brick wall, the wall is just ~5 years away. Humans have been around for a long time but also don't live very long, but to sustain this internet infrastructure for an average person's lifespan it'd take ~16 replacement cycles. In terms of human civilization timescales this infrastructure cant/won't be sustainable for very long. Personal opinion but I think we should figure out how to run network cables to remote places better, we managed to do it with gas and electricity.