Doug Bostrom"Measurements show that about 10% of the aerosol particles in the stratosphere contain aluminum and other metals that originated from the “burn-up” of satellites and rocket stages during reentry. Although direct health or environmental impacts at ground level are unlikely, these measurements have broad implications for the stratosphere and higher altitudes."
"Using a coupled physicoeconomic model, we show that imperfect competition between satellite operators will reduce economic welfare and distort orbital-use patterns relative to optimal public utility systems. These results highlight the need for regulatory policies promoting efficient orbit use in the public interest."
#SpaceGrab
#LowEarthOrbitSatelliteConstellations
#OrbitalKittyVideoDeliverySystemOligopoly
2/2
The JASON report (PDF).
Read the fine print. The collision between human nature and stringent orbital asset demise requirements is notable.
We make mistakes. So here's a potential large negative externality in the form of a cascading proliferation of debris, thereby degrading the value of LEO for everybody.
Do -practical- public benefits of dense LEO constellations --earn-- the privilege of "you may impose this risk for no money?"
1/2
It's conventional that cellular operators pay for the space they use on rooftops, tower footprints etc. One purpose of this is compensation for opportunity costs and direct impacts; "what else could go there?" and "what about boots tromping on our roofing?" and "ugly."
LEO constellations impose opportunity costs, possibly enormous according to a JASON study commissioned by NSF.
Should LEO be committed and allocated without compensation?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/10/spacex-details-starlink-for-phones-plan-launching-in-2024/
KITTYKATMANIAC
