Starlink will never be orbital trash in any meaningful way. If everything failed today, they’d all deorbit within 5 years. It’s only in higher orbits where shit gets stuck for decades or hundreds of years.
Comment on Elon Musk says SpaceX HQ officially moving to Texas, blames new CA trans student privacy law
Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 2 months agoYes, the rocket is reusable. The fuel is not, and by lowering the cost per kg of space freight, it has driven more usage of rockets. Which use non-renewable fuel at astounding rates and make huge emissions for a minor payload total.
We’re seeing extreme temperatures and unseasonal weather events already - James Webb is cool and the ISS does need service missions but Starlink is just more orbital trash waiting to happen.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
Starlink will never be orbital trash in any meaningful way
You’re right. They’ll be atmospheric pollution. That’s what “burn up on reentry” means.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Well in that case, 100% of things that we’ve launched into space are either
1: Space trash 2: Atmospheric Trash 3: Ocean Trash
Except for the 1st stages of F9 and it’s fairings, and one or two first stages of some other small start ups.
xthexder@l.sw0.com 2 months ago
That does seem to be the point this thread is making: Going to space is really bad for Earth’s environment. SpaceX and starlink are just accelerating that.
Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
I’d like to see what people’s reactions would be if we put all the 6,219 starlink satellites in a pile on the ground and lit them on fire. Would they say “fuck yeah! Fast internet!” or would they say “are you out of your mind?”
And they plan on having 12,000 or something each lasting about 5 years.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
Rocket launches are not why climate change is occurring.
Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 2 months ago
It’s not helping. We aren’t going to get a “deus ex machina” moment on righting damage done to the environment. Yes focus on the bigger goals and pollution sources, but this is a trend in the wrong way to enlage Elon’s money pile.
bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
You’re missing the forest for the trees and way over estimating how much pollution rocket launches put out.
We have to leave the planet, which means we need to practice so to speak, and those rockets are the only way we are going to get out there right now.
laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
We need to leave the planet? For where?
For a planet that’s completely incapable of sustaining life?
Do you realize that it’ll take many, many orders of magnitude more resources, time, and effort to make literally any other celestial body within several years of space flight of us capable of sustaining life than it will be to fix the habitable planet we have right here?
We’re not getting off this rock without stabilizing it enough to sustain us long-term first. And by then, we won’t need to leave. Either way, though, evacuating isn’t a viable solution.
And if you don’t believe me, go talk to some biologists.