• Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yes, the rocket is reusable. The fuel is not, and by lowering the cost per kg of space freight, it has driven more usage of rockets. Which use non-renewable fuel at astounding rates and make huge emissions for a minor payload total.

    We’re seeing extreme temperatures and unseasonal weather events already - James Webb is cool and the ISS does need service missions but Starlink is just more orbital trash waiting to happen.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It’s not helping. We aren’t going to get a “deus ex machina” moment on righting damage done to the environment. Yes focus on the bigger goals and pollution sources, but this is a trend in the wrong way to enlarge Elon’s money pile.

        • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You’re missing the forest for the trees and way over estimating how much pollution rocket launches put out.

          We have to leave the planet, which means we need to practice so to speak, and those rockets are the only way we are going to get out there right now. The pollution produced by them is well worth it.

          • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            We need to leave the planet? For where?

            For a planet that’s completely incapable of sustaining life?

            Do you realize that it’ll take many, many orders of magnitude more resources, time, and effort to make literally any other celestial body within several years of space flight of us capable of sustaining life than it will be to fix the habitable planet we have right here?

            We’re not getting off this rock without stabilizing it enough to sustain us long-term first. And by then, we won’t need to leave. Either way, though, evacuating isn’t a viable solution.

            And if you don’t believe me, go talk to some biologists.

            • bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Gotta do it eventually dude or this will be our grave.

              It’s strange to me that you can have the foresight to see the existential threat that is climate change, but not the risk of having all of our eggs in one basket.

              You’ve also moved the goalposts. Your original argument was that they pollute so much and use so many finite resources that they’re bad. Is this no longer your argument?

              You’re never going to convince me that space exploration is something we should stop.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Starlink will never be orbital trash in any meaningful way. If everything failed today, they’d all deorbit within 5 years. It’s only in higher orbits where shit gets stuck for decades or hundreds of years.

      • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        Starlink will never be orbital trash in any meaningful way

        You’re right. They’ll be atmospheric pollution. That’s what “burn up on reentry” means.

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Well in that case, 100% of things that we’ve launched into space are either

          1: Space trash

          2: Atmospheric Trash

          3: Ocean Trash

          Except for the 1st stages of F9 and it’s fairings, and one or two first stages of some other small start ups.

          Edit: sorry and the shuttle. In retrospect with the amount of refurbishment it required it wasn’t really “reusable” per say, but it did avoid being ocean trash.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            That does seem to be the point this thread is making: Going to space is really bad for Earth’s environment. SpaceX and starlink are just accelerating that.

    • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’d like to see what people’s reactions would be if we put all the 6,219 starlink satellites in a pile on the ground and lit them on fire. Would they say “fuck yeah! Fast internet!” or would they say “are you out of your mind?”

      And they plan on having 12,000 or something each lasting about 5 years.