• xor@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • xor@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        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…

          • xor@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            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.