82
submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by yogthos@lemmygrad.ml to c/technology@hexbear.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fox@hexbear.net 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They're in way too low an orbit to pose a Kessler threat since any debris would fall back down on a scale of a few months to under a decade. The danger comes from stuff that's at decade-to-century lifetimes.

Starlink sucks for a bunch of other reasons like the huge rocket emissions to put a bunch of astronomy-polluting garbage in space that's designed to fail.

[-] barrbaric@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

They also have massively increased the level of aluminum oxide in the atmosphere from all the satellites burning up (something like a 30% increase over baseline), which might damage the ozone layer.

Apparently half of all active satellites are Starlink and they plan to increase the current number by ~8x.

[-] joaomarrom@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

holy shit, I knew it was bad but not that bad

this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
82 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23800 readers
167 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS