Prof. Sam LawlerSep 18, 2024

Oh look, Starlink is continuing to screw up the sky in every way possible.

"Second-Generation Starlink Satellites Leak 30 Times More Radio Interference, Threatening Astronomical Observations"

https://www.astron.nl/starlink-satellites/

It's going to be "hilarious" when Starlink messes up the radio sky so badly that radio astronomers can't even use quasars to calibrate GPS anymore. There are so many consequences from all these stupid, cheaply built, disposable satellites. https://www.universetoday.com/105160/navigating-the-cosmos-by-quasar/

Second-Generation Starlink Satellites Leak 30 Times More Radio Interference, Threatening Astronomical Observations | ASTRON

Observations with the LOFAR (Low Frequency Array) radio telescope last year showed that first generation Starlink satellites emit unintended radio waves that can hinder astronomical observations.

ASTRON
Show threadOlsonSep 18, 2024
@sundogplanets I am naive about spacecraft. Do these satellites have a way to be brought safely back to earth, or are they stuck in space until they break apart and fall to earth?
Show threadnullagentSep 18, 2024

@volcano @sundogplanets

For the most part YES. Most of these satellites have ion thrusters which should allow them to be deorbited on command. The orbit these are on will also naturally decay after 5yrs if the satellites stop occasionally boosting their orbits.

This is all a bit uncharted air control problem the so it's probably a bit dangerous to bring a lot down at once.

Show threadIsaac Ji KuoSep 18, 2024

@nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets

Yes, they will mostly burn up in the upper atmosphere and are unlikely to kill people via direct impact. However, these large numbers of satellites will deplete the ozone layer and kill and blind people via increased rates of cancer and cataracts.

The chances of SpaceX/Elon Musk caring are ... I dunno ... close to zero. Even if government regulation demands that they do something about it, I expect they will simply defy the law.

Show threadSamuel LeuenbergerSep 18, 2024
@isaackuo @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets "these large numbers of satellites will deplete the ozone layer and kill and blind people via increased rates of cancer and cataracts" 🤔
[citation needed]
Show threadIsaac Ji KuoSep 18, 2024

@Leuenberg @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets

Reference re massive numbers of satellite reentries depleting ozone layer:

https://www.space.com/megaconstellations-threat-to-ozone-layer-recovery

Satellite megaconstellations threaten ozone layer recovery, study confirms

Within the next 30 years, concentrations of ozone-damaging aluminum oxides in the atmosphere could increase by 650%.

Space
Show threadSamuel LeuenbergerSep 18, 2024
@isaackuo @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets Interesting, but your assertion is lacking a lot of conditionnal. From the author of the study : "any conclusions related to environmental impacts are premature".
Show threaddoneSep 18, 2024
@Leuenberg @isaackuo @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets while your skepticism is reasonable, people studying these topics said similar things about carbon dioxide emissions, PFCs, etc, and turned out to be correct, once we started facing the consequences. Many experts continue to urge caution, but caution doesn’t make anyone money. Another hypothetical for your consideration: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280 1/?
Show threaddoneSep 18, 2024
@Leuenberg @isaackuo @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets the physics is already well understood, why must the experiment to determine the validity of the cautious position be jeopardizing the only environmental system we have (the only known habitable planet accessible to us, the Earth as an organism) to test the validity of the hypothesis? Because of profits? Money is an illusion, power at the cost of sustainability is foolishness.
Show threadSamuel Leuenberger
@done @isaackuo @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets A proper study of these potential impact would go a long way toward appropriate regulations.
Sep 18, 2024 at 3:52pmWeb
Show threadIsaac Ji KuoSep 18, 2024

@Leuenberg @done @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets

The important thing, from the perspective of SpaceX, is to quickly do it before there's a "proper" study, and if there is a study to say it isn't a "proper" study, and to blah blah blah ...

Can't you just admit that they obviously don't care? If they did care at all, they would have performed a study themselves, beforehand. Even if this was a sham study for lying propaganda purposes, at least it would have given the appearance of caring.

Show threadSamuel LeuenbergerSep 20, 2024
@isaackuo @done @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets I totally agree that SpaceX certainly don't give a rat about the potential environmental externalities of their activities (and let's be honest, exactly like any other businesses).
My contention with your assertion is that on the other hand, you cannot make a statement of harm (environmental or health) without a reasonable evidence, which is obvioulsy lacking here.
Show threadIsaac Ji KuoSep 20, 2024

@Leuenberg @done @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets

I disagree with your assertion that the evidence isn't reasonable.

Show threaddoneSep 21, 2024
@isaackuo @Leuenberg @nullagent @volcano @sundogplanets I’m assuming that fallacy was unintentional, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance . These are “hypothetical” negative outcomes, yes, but they are extrapolations based on known science. E.g.: 1. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fee.2624 2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20530196241255088 . Skepticism is healthy, but if you can only be convinced by seeing a depleted ozone and damaged ecosystems, I cannot afford to humour you.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia