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 𒂼𒄄
@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.
@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.
@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.