this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
40 points (87.0% liked)

Technology

60354 readers
5751 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
40
Elon Musk loses over 400 satellites in 3 months according to data from space-track.org (defense contractor used), and over 1,000 for the lifespan of the company (satellitemap.space)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ilovelemmy12345@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
15 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I received a lot of flack in my other posts for providing this data in conjunction with his efforts to raise money. I separated this post in order to comply with the rules. https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/musks-spacex-approaches-investors-another-tender-offer-bloomberg-news-2023-12-06/

To verify the satellite data click the bottom left box that shows the fireball.

Idk how this news isn't mainstream. A loss of 1,000 satellites before the lifespan of 5 years is a major story.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This stuff falls back into the atmosphere and burns up quite rapidly since it's in extremely low orbit.

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Even if 100% of the stuff burns up, it's a lot of energy and materials that needs to be constantly replaced. Seems like a lot of maintenance to keep the array operating long-term.

[–] teft@startrek.website 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also vaporizing metals being added to the upper atmosphere isn’t exactly great.

[–] Gigan@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't great how? Like in a going to make global warming-worse way or going to give us cancer way?

[–] teft@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There are several effects this could have on Earth and the atmosphere. The presence of these particles could affect how water freezes into ice in the stratosphere, and influence the size of stratospheric aerosol particles. They could also induce salt deposition on aerosol particles, and alter the stratospheric refraction of light.

These may seem like subtle changes, but they could have unintended consequences that we really ought to investigate, the researchers say.

Link here

[–] topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Few months ago an article was published about how the rockets was warming the upper atmosphere and it was bad for it.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 5 points 1 year ago

You make a good point there for sure. The lower the orbit, the faster the return and burn up, but the lower the latency as well. That's why usual satellite internet sucks so badly. Those satellites are in geostationary orbit and light takes 0.7 seconds to get there and back.

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is what scares me the most. At a certain point, we'll just have to go "whoops, our planet has no more resources to leech", and we'll be permanently stuck in stone age

[–] ilovelemmy12345@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Data showing it's happening within a day.