this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
150 points (97.5% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5246 readers
352 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i'm starting to think maybe we shouldn't burn tons of fuel for billionaires to be space tourists... ...
regarding starlink, all satellites eventually deorbit and burn up in the atmosphere... but yeah it's the quantity and time frame
The only difference between "burn up on reentry" and "burn up in a bonfire" is altitude. I'll call the police of my neighbor is burning TVs in their backyard every other day.
like i said, quantity and frequency...
if your neighbor burned a tv in a bonfire every 3 years, and used that tv to answer mysteries of the universe and had to burn it to do that... you'd be okay with it.
The starlink constellation is-
If they last 5 years that's 2400-8400 deorbiting per year. These aren't the ones "answering the mysteries of the universe" these are the ones selling internet access.
From the article-
well i was contrasting how say, the hubble telescope is a worthwhile satellite that will eventually burn up in the atmosphere, while starlink is wasteful....
Hubble is so far away it won't reenter for a very long time. And that's 1 versus 12000.
what is your point?
my point is you're agreeing with me a lot but misinterpreting me entirely... so you're trying to argue with me.
...
i'll repeat my point reeeeeally simply:
yes, starlink wasteful, bad satellites.
some satellites good, like hubble.
Starlink only answers the mysteries of Google but I agree with your frequency point. The satellites burning up in the atmosphere release an inconceivable fraction of the total emissions the global economy releases into the atmosphere.
well i was contrasting how say, the hubble telescope is a worthwhile satellite that will eventually burn up in the atmosphere, while starlink is wasteful....
Before you call it wasteful, consider the people who now can use it as a proper link to modern society... Rural Canadians in particular like myself, and others in rural areas around the world.
Canada is famous for its poor quality and expensive telecom services, and before Starlink I paid the same amount for a 1mbps 3g connection, 20gb cap, high ping and marginally usable uptime.
Starlink is bringing modern connectivity to huge areas of the world that were underserved, and breaking local monopolies while it does so. If some satellites have to burn up to do so, compare it to all the e-waste here on the ground created just for entertainment purposes and at least it's serving a valid purpose.
i have considered that, and it does serve a very good purpose there...
but still, launching a shitload of satellites wastes a lot of fuel and energy, and deorbiting them is rather wasteful.
im sure the same thing could be done without treating satellites like kleenex...
one of those things where profit and preserving the environment clash.
I think we're still looking at an early prototype of Starlink, and there's potential to develop it in many ways as our space infrastructure develops. After all, space tech is only now advancing after decades of stagnation, driven by the reusable rocket. It's hard to think the company that invented the reusable rocket is also all in on disposable satellites, so we have to consider why that is.
The big problem is that things in LEO experience atmospheric drag and need to be boosted occasionally. Starlink sats have ion thrusters to do this and effectively reach EOL when their fuel is depleted.
On-orbit refueling is another core SpaceX goal, and there are also other companies launching experimental sats and tech demos to refuel satellites or otherwise boost them. So someday we will probably have a fleet of shepherd sats fueling and maintaining Starlink.
So why not just bigger fuel tanks then? I think they want these to come back down. Starlink is a massive beta test that turned into a full rollout way faster than expected and a large fraction of the satellites are already obsolete. However as people have already come to depend on the service, they have to keep it working as they progressively improve the satellites. And the easiest way to do this is just to let the old ones burn up and free space in the shells for new ones.
They can't even launch the real v2 satellite without Starship as the current sat is known as the "v2 mini" and is shrunk to fit in the F9 fairing. I would guess that these Starship launched versions will have bigger fuel tanks and a longer life.
the problem you're not acknowledging is that the atmosphere is a limited resource that belongs to all of us. (not to mention fuel/energy issues)
i think it groovy to do some beta testing and all... but they shouldn't just keep launching disposable satellites to bridge the gap and keep service going... all space launches should be extremely well thought out, efficient, and as long lasting as possible...
like a nasa mission
sure, do some research... but don't just burn up the sky....