Moderator removed post
View all comments
Space is pretty big. It seems strange to stick to low earth orbit. Even stranger to imagine that tons of metal burning up in our skies wouldn't have consequences.
Low earth orbit makes it easier to accommodate changing communication traffic rates and permits low latency, the latter being impossible via the much higher Clarke orbit.
Depending on references, roughly 15,000 to 40,000 tonnes of material enters and/or burns up in our skies every year - a large percentage of it metallic - all naturally occurring. This dwarfs projected human activity.
Looking into the future by applying reentry forecasts considering the deployment of mega-constellations, the aluminum excess ratio at the top of the mesosphere can reach an yearly excess of more than 640% above natural levels, or over 360 metric tons of aluminum oxide clusters per year from satellites.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280
360 metric tons of aluminum oxide clusters per year from satellites.
Can reach. Less than one gram per square km per year. To claim such a small amount would have any meaningful effect is IMO extraordinary.
Stepping back, there's been a flurry of such negativity recently, much of it smacking of the fear, uncertainty and doubt peddled for example by the NASA doctors coming up with every excuse to delay the Mercury astronauts. Thankfully they were ignored.
I guess you don't really understand how catalysts work. Nor do you seem to understand how balanced systems work. It also seem like you're having trouble understanding how time lags work and why they can be so concerning with something like this.
Kinda sounds like you just want to have your favorite space corporation's megaconstellation and to not allow anyone to ever complain about the impacts of something like a megaconstellation.
I would imagine that back in the day you had people like yourself going around saying that there's no way we could ever cut down the primordial forest or that we could ever fish out the oceans. (fig leaf edit :P) And, at the time, it probably seemed like there was no way we could ever chop down the forests or fish out the oceans.
But, that's how imbalances over time tend to add up. Kinda sucks but nature is always keeping a tally.
Why are you reluctant to type the word "SpaceX"? Based on your comment history, it's clear you have an irrational dislike of the company. Regardless, beyond the technobabble, oozing sense of superiority, belittling, and attempt to discredit me by perceived negative association, the claim is nevertheless extraordinary and thus requires extraordinary proof.
I'll leave it there for your no doubt scintillating retort. Have a good day.
Well. All the science is in that link I laid out there for ya. It's up to you to take the appropriate steps and read it or not.
I'm sure there are undoubtedly issues with the science. It's very early on this issue. But, by the time we see the effects, we'll have built in 30 years of having to deal with them.
And given the potential consequences, 30 years of those consequences could really suck.