Yes, because the first thing I think about with a thinning atmosphere, is some megacorpo’s potential monetary losses, and not my home’s likely demise. Fuck them.
Why don’t you cold hearted demons ever think about the vulnerable investors? They don’t have marketable skills ffs! How will they live when the profits stop?
How will they live when the profits stop?
“Modelled CO2 emissions scenarios from years 2000-2100 indicate a potential 50-66 percent reduction in satellite carrying capacity between the altitudes of 200 and 1,000 km.”
That’s a severe reduction.
I imagine Starlink still plans to launch as many as legally allowed.
Imagine if Mr. “Occupy Mars” ends up being the guy to trap us here on Earth forever by clogging up space.
Imagine if Mr. “Occupy Mars” ends up being the guy to trap us here on Earth forever by clogging up space.
The starlink satellites orbit far too low for that to happen. Without expelling limited propellants to periodically boost their orbits, every satellite in the constellation will fall to earth in less than 10 years, most in less than 1.
I’ve heard that before. But the main point of the paper is that drag is decreasing. So I’m curious to know how that impacts the stability of Starlink going forward. I doubt they have new figures after one day.
They aim to actively deorbit starlink sats.
(Edit: they keep a small amount of propellant in reserve for the initial deorbit burn, and then position the solar array to give maximum drag which hastens things considerably)
As far as I know, apart from the first few batches, the “production run” of sats has a pretty low failure rate and are proactively sent to their demise.
I miss the days when Mars was what he was known for…
Dumbass could’ve been remembered as “IRL Ironman” forever if he just shut up and enjoyed his wealth.
I think becoming a billionaire causes brain damage. Like, for real, literally brain damage.
they have so many “yes men” around that they think every stupid thing they say is literally gold
You’d think that this would place Musk on the “stop climate change” side, but I doubt he has the intelligence to figure that out.
Doesn’t that just mean that lower orbits can be used? Less air resistance?
I imagine it’d make the business more expensive low orbit satelites slowly fall into the atmosphere and are supposed to burn up after a couple of years. I imagine with lower orbits that they’d fall sooner and you’d have to launch more to sustain your system which then produces more pollution and perpetuates the problem.
Edit article says more space junk and slower burning up in the atmosphere as an effect so that’s interesting. If it becomes a space junk graveyard I imagine satellites will more frequently get damaged by them and become junk themselves?
Things fall into the thicker parts of the atmosphere because drag from the tiny amounts of air up there. if that is shrinking, then you can get lower before you have the same amount of drag? Therefore lower orbits might be more feasible?
Lower orbit means faster though, so it may not be linear? Would be interesting to see (someone else do) the maths.
Eventually, mining the LEO cloud for energy and materials will become lucrative.
Of course, there are other issues with our atmosphere going away….
Like that we are speedrunning to making Earth into Mars?
Given the speed of climate change, probably more like a speed run to our sister planet, Venus.
