Worst part of updating my talk: looking up how fucking many more Starlink satellites there were than last time I gave a version of this talk. 200 more than a month ago. Fuck.
There are now 6,209 Starlinks in orbit, fully 62% of the 10,009 active satellites in orbit.
All of these "fully demisable" Starlinks are planned to burn up and deposit their metal in Earth's atmosphere. I just saw multiple 100-pound pieces of another SpaceX "fully demisable" rocket, so I'm sure it'll be just fine.
In case it's not clear, both of these options are bad.
"Fully demisable" = 29 tons of aluminum per day in the stratosphere/mesosphere just from reentering Starlink sats, ignoring all the rocket bodies required to resupply the constantly-replaced megaconstellation.
And I hope it's obvious why 100 pound pieces of junk dropping from orbit every hour would probably be bad. So hopefully Starlink engineering is better than Crew Dragon trunk engineering?
This is such an incredibly bad situation...
How many Starlink satellites would have to break up in the upper atmosphere to make a measurable affect on global warming?
@1dalm @sundogplanets The problem here is not global warming, it is the potential damage to the #OzoneLayer. The metal particles from burnt-up #satellites could reactivate the human-made #chlorine that is still up there (and will remain there for decades) into a very effective #ozone killer . You don't need a lot of material for that.
When we managed to save the #OzoneLayer ~40 years ago, we did not have to think about thousands of satellites burning up in the atmosphere each year.
@dgfeist @1dalm @sundogplanets
So how do we talk to people who swear by technology and think starlink is the best thing since sliced bread.
If a person was to object to technology as it takes jobs away, they are branded luddites, however in the context of this discussion that concern would be backed by science studies and backed by genuine environmental concerns.
So we are not fearing tech as it may take our jobs away, we are simply trying to highlight something where the solution is to change the way we do things and find a solution to space junk generally.
So how can we discuss this, esp with non science people, even though, again in the context of the science, the idea of reactions is covered at Secondary level education at least.
@zleap @dgfeist @1dalm @sundogplanets
The intention for extending internet access all over the planet is great, but this implementation is lunaticly bad... :D
@BillySmith @zleap @1dalm @sundogplanets There have been previous attempts to provide sat internet in most parts of the world. I still have an INMARSAT BGAN terminal somewhere that had a pretty good bandwidth for the time (mid 2000s).
None of these solutions required a mega constellation. And in the end, the demand wasn't that great as mobile networks already covered all the more densely populated areas. For the other places, you don't need 50 k satellites.
bonifartius πΌπ
@dgfeist @BillySmith @zleap @1dalm @sundogplanets IIRC starlink consists out of so many satellites because it isn't using geostationary orbit. geostationary is more expensive to place satellites in and you have much more lag due to the higher distance.
@zleap @bonifartius @BillySmith @1dalm @sundogplanets I doubt the "more expensive". For a single satellite, it is more expensive. However, you only need a couple of launches tonGEO instead of hundreds to LEO.
@dgfeist @zleap @BillySmith @1dalm @sundogplanets from what i can find with a quick search geostationary is about a magnitude more expensive per unit of weight.
@bonifartius @zleap @BillySmith @1dalm @sundogplanets I know (I manage a satellite project as part of my work). But you only need a couple of launches for GEO instead of hundreds for a LEO constellation. The GEO satellites also operate much longer than the LEOs.
So, total cost for a GEO network is certainly not higher than for a LEO. The coverage around the poles is better and the network latency is lower for LEO.
@zleap @dgfeist @BillySmith @1dalm @sundogplanets
this turned out to be kind of a rambling rant. feel free to ignore.
i don't like the "musk is so dumb lololol" posts. there are good reasons for starlink being designed this way.
seeing a train of starlink satellites did annoy me, because i like to look at the night sky. then, there already are satellites visible about every minute or so. spinning things into "musk bad" is bullshit. apparently the new starlink satellites are painted in some way to reduce reflectivity.
the ozone layer problem of course is something that needs to be fixed, i think it's more important than the supposed climate change everything is currently reduced to.
here's what annoys me most though:
people with good internet connection talking about how something like starlink shouldn't exist is insincere. i think despite problems the internet is one of the great equalizers. like e.g. affordable cars were. which probably are hated by the same people in this thread as well.
it's easy to hate cars if you firstly could easily afford one and secondly are using subsidies to finance public transport in cities (despite being fully subsidized, public transport in the countryside is a joke everywhere i went).
it's easy to hate starlink if you have the option to get 100s of MBit via landline, cable or cell phone. infrastructure which in almost every country at one point was build using tax money and now is privatized and run into the ground as they started out in an oligopoly.
my point is that we either roll back technological progress to a state where it is sustainable or allow everyone to get the best way possible to participate (i'm fine with both ways). everything else is unethical if you can not present an alternative technology.
to say there can't be peace and quiet in the outsides with e.g. starlink is externalizing the decision while the simplest solution would be to not take a phone with you in the first place :)
to contrast: what i can't do is removing and preventing the wind turbines they are in process to put into every free spot in germany. which i know do kill bats and bird of prey. which makes me sad and which is highly disruptive to ecosystems. very likely more than the few promille CO2 saved.
@bonifartius @dgfeist @BillySmith @1dalm @sundogplanets
So given the research we are looking at with regard to Aluminium Oxide and the Ozone layer, the question is are we willing to pay the price for cheap satellite deployment to give us internet or phone signals everywhere.
One of the nice things about getting out in to the wide open spaces is you can experience being there, with your own senses, and have the peace and quiet, ideal for watching wildlife.