You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
6 points

The starlink constellation is-

Nearly 12,000 satellites are planned to be deployed, with a possible later extension to 42,000.

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-

plunge through the atmosphere and disintegrate, leaving a stream of pollutants in their wake. Although scientists do not yet know how this will influence Earth’s environment, Dr. Ross thinks that it will be the most significant impact from spaceflight.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Hubble is so far away it won’t reenter for a very long time. And that’s 1 versus 12000.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 4.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 29K

    Comments

Community moderators