I presented at the local planetary journal club this morning about the 3 articles I co-authored for The Conversation in the past weeks about the effects that one million satellites would have on the night sky, the atmosphere, and the orbital environment (spoiler alert: all very very bad)

https://theconversation.com/a-new-space-race-could-turn-our-atmosphere-into-a-crematorium-for-satellites-276366

https://theconversation.com/too-many-satellites-earths-orbit-is-on-track-for-a-catastrophe-but-we-can-stop-it-275430

And one on light pollution that I thought would get published today but might not be out until after the weekend.

A new space race could turn our atmosphere into a ‘crematorium for satellites’

Planned ‘megaconstellations’ of satellites could cause unforeseen harm to the ozone layer and climate systems. Global regulation is needed before it’s too late.

The Conversation

The third article in this (horrible) series of articles I've co-authored is now out. https://theconversation.com/a-million-new-spacex-satellites-will-destroy-the-night-sky-for-everyone-on-earth-277938

A million satellites of the size required for "AI data centers" would mean that everyone in the world would have more visible satellites than stars for most of the night and most of the year.

But don't worry, we'll be in Kessler Syndrome WAY before we get to a million satellites!

A million new SpaceX satellites will destroy the night sky — for everyone on Earth

If SpaceX launches one million new satellites, it will increase atmospheric pollution and risk of falling debris. And we will see more satellites than stars.

The Conversation

RE: https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets/116152057176915428

I've got a thread here where I more carefully explain the prediction plot, and post a bunch of sky predictions for many latitudes around the world, just to make the point of how incredibly stupid the idea of a million satellites is.

Oh and fun fact, 2 people have sent me this terrifyingly stupid graphic from SpaceX this morning, showing that we actually significantly *underestimated* the reflecting area of these absolutely fucking enormous satellites they're planning. This is so stupid.

@sundogplanets

STOP AI DATACENTRES USING COMMUNITY POWER AND WATER!!!

Ok

NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!

Time to admit if you're opposed to orbital #Ai your opposition to Ai wasn't about environmental damage.

@n_dimension Well, not like that because the physics doesn't work.

- Way too hard to keep cool
- Say hello to Kessler effect

And if you care about the environment, you should care about all the substances that will end up in the upper atmosphere from the regular deorbiting of all those satellites. It's pretty much like dumping your rubbish in the ocean and thinking it's gone.

@sundogplanets

@gunchleoc @sundogplanets

Ai Orbitals dont have to be in geostationary. You can boost them higher. Say goodbye to Kessler effect.

"Way to hard to keep cool", I seem to be the only person on this planet who has heard of droplet cooling or nuclear turbine cooling. Way more efficient than radiator fins, which is what every 'expert' seems to be stuck on.

#AiOrbitals #SpaceDatacentre

@n_dimension @sundogplanets Droplet cooling sounds interesting. This is the newest article I came across: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350281931_A_Review_on_Thermal_Design_of_Liquid_Droplet_Radiator_System

That was 5 years ago, is there a system in production or is this still at the research stage?

However, even if the cooling problems are solved, this won't solve the environmental problem of littering our upper atmosphere with chemicals.

I didn't look into nuclear turbine cooling. If that generates radioactive waste, no thank you, that's more environmental harm.

@sundogplanets @gunchleoc

Nuke turbine cooling:
SP-100 - 1994 DARPA Design, fully engineered
Krusty 2018, Tested on the ground AT FULL POWER

Both designs are self contained nuke wise.