Hopefully “actionable” means that a sister satellite can vaporise the owning company’s ceo and director from orbit, that would be nice.

Brother, I think you’ve read more into what I wrote than I intended. We’re on the same page, I drive an EV and work in solar… I’m not in any way saying that I think drones are a worse option overall, when I said I’d like to see a better comparison, I mean exactly that. I’d like to see it, because I’d find it interesting. I never see well-thought-out comparisons of this kind of thing. While clearly better by many metrics (and arguably the more important ones - water and air pollution, plastic particles, etc), I’d still like to see a comparison of total embodied energy, and whole-life environmental impact. I’m sure it would still come out in the drones’ favour, but just assuming that is no good reason not to actually see the data.

I think I’m a little jaded where it comes to battery-powered stuff on a small scale. I see so, so many bits of battery-powered crap going to waste because it’s cheaply made and essentially unrepairable - from vapes to scooters to toy drones, even little speakers and vacuums. I see a lot of stuff touted as “eco” that actually ends up being one use, or close to it, so I assumed (probably wrongly) that these drones would end up being used a handful of times before being junk.

EVs are a different kettle of fish, even though they are pretty complex and full of electronics, there’s still a decent financial impetus to recycle them properly, and the batteries and components can be reused - my home is powered by second-hand EV batteries and solar.

In essence, I’d like to see more comparative analysis of anything like this. The earlier we do it, the better we can choose which technologies to use going forward. A really good example of what I mean is plastic bags - this video highlights why it’s so hard to work out what the best option is. Not because I’m looking for a way to keep using a harmful technology, just because the answers are complex, and without a clear “best option”.

https://youtu.be/JvzvM9tf5s0

I’d like to see a better analysis, that’s all. I don’t know either way, and I’d bet that the co2 of the drone show is orders of magnitude lower than fireworks, for example. But as with lots of emerging technologies, it’s hard to make direct comparisons - is the lithium going to be recycled at end of life, did it come from “good” mines, how much of the plastic will end up in landfill and how much is pla/plant-based, and how does all this compare to the cardboard and explosive in the fireworks. Also, do the electronics contain conflict minerals, and are they recyclable, and what’s the expected life of the drones? How do the chemicals for colour in the fireworks affect their pollution, and how are they produced? Having recently seen an fairly damming look at Formula E (run on generators that are flown from England to wherever the races are, that kind of thing), I’m just intrigued to know more about how the sausage is made, if you see what I mean. It’s in our interest to ask this kind of thing, in the same way that it would have paid to ask more questions about how single-use plastics would be disposed of, rather than just trusting that them using less trees in their construction was worth it. These things never have a simple answer, and I’d like to know as much as possible

I think that with everything like this, it’s very hard to quantify the effects - drones are predominantly plastic that won’t be recycled, lithium batteries from “low cost” sources, and complex electronics. Small drones are by nature expendable, so I think it’s pretty hard to quantify which of these the entertainment forms is “best” for the environment - they’re both kind of excessive. I wouldn’t want to be without either, they both have their place and bring a sense of wonder and awe (great video by the way!), I just think it’s an interesting discussion to have

In a word, yes