Spyke

Syndicated from the fediverse. Read and engage on the original instance.

View original on lemmy.zip
technology·TechnologybyBrikoX
130

39 replies

lemmy.world

Retrieving the deorbited satellites — which weigh roughly 573 to 650 pounds (260 to 295 kg) for first-generation units and 1,764 to 2,756 pounds (800 to 1,250 kg) for second-generation units — is technically impractical and financially unviable, according to the company. Hence, the incineration technique.

So that's 148,980 to 325,000 kilograms of electronics burned. Literally hundreds of tons of e-waste being incinerated by single corporation in just half a year.

86
lemmy.today

They've also been shown to have a not insignificant impact on the ozone. We're so fucked

60
lemmy.world

Does puncturing through our upper atmosphere during escape have any non insignificant effects? I've seen some of those videos of launches at night (when the solar wind lights up everything) and it sure looks like we are burning holes in our ozone layer when we do that. Just asking you cause you seem somewhat knowledgeable.

8
lemmy.today

Okay so I'm just into chemistry and astronomy as a hobby because I love learning, no expert. My understanding though.

The launches definitely aren't great but they're actually not the biggest issue. The problem is the satellites, when they're deorbited, generate 50+ lbs of aluminum oxide which just floats on the upper atmosphere for years (like 30 years). Aluminum oxide is an especially potent catalyst for ozone depletion. The mega constellations that Musk wants would require multiple satellites to be deorbited daily, quickly piling up the aluminum oxide. The low orbit internet satellites are relatively short lived. So he wants either Kessler syndrome or enough aluminum oxide to eat the ozone in a year

33

At least we can have the ctharsis of staking them out in the sun and watching them burn like the vampires they are.

4

The increased frequency of rocket launches also hurts ozone from what I read in the studies done on satellite burn ups.

2
Rhaedasreply
fedia.io

That's a lot of electronics waste. Estimates for 2025 e-waste into landfills was around 65 million tons, and it continues to rise each year. It's not an either/or, we can complain about both, but the scale difference makes the first seem a bit less dramatic. We should do something about our throwaway society.

12

I work in IT and am resposible for e-recycle runs. I take the laptops home, re install windows, and give them away free to any poor person i come across.

4
lemmy.world

Not just incinerated, incinerate red in the upper atmosphere while directly heating it.

They burn up from friction, it's not just the flames the whole process is heating the planet and who knows how many things it's fucking up we haven't noticed before.

But the most important bit is if they don't know how to get them down, they need to stop sending them up. It's not rocket appliances

12
sh.itjust.works

You're not crashing the entire rocket, just a tiny bit of it. Also, generating direct energy has never been a climate change issue, it's the byproducts of that generating that are fucking us up.

4

As I said, only the energy of the satellite, not the entire rocket, which is a miniscule fraction of the energy the launch used.

Also pointing out that it really doesn't matter, in terms of energy, potential or otherwise. It's only the physical byproducts that can have any major impact.

2
Stevereply
startrek.website

Hundreds of tons of random natural space dust hit the atmosphere daily

4
reddthat.com

Space dust has a different composition to artificial satellites however

16
discuss.online

More than a hundred tons of meteors daily. Many meteors are made up of heavy metals. Iron. Nickel. And so forth.

1

And nature emits over 90% of the CO2 going into our atmosphere, so why can't I heat my house with coal?

1
lemmy.world

I imagine most of that weight isn't the actual electronics, but the housing.

2
lemmy.world

I have a feeling if I lit truck load of old computers on fire in a quarry or something, arguing "When you think about it most of the e-waste was just metal PC cases so it doesn't count" would not fly in court.

1

Just that the number may be quite inflated, when referring to electronics. It's still bad. Especially as someone else pointed out that the housing may be problematic as well.

1

I'm so glad the FCC keeps giving them money for rural broadband grants instead of giving more to local PUDs. It warms my soul to know that tons of electronics are getting unevenly burned in our atmosphere.

33
Etherreply
aussie.zone

I'm pretty sure that de-orbiting and incinerating the satellites cleans up space junk and prevents Kessler syndrome. Launching that constellation into space in the first place, on the other hand...

13

De-orbiting space junk is exactly akin to Samsung starting a recycling program where they just take everything and light it on fire.

8

This is how they were designed out of the gate. This isn’t a new problem. This was their solution from day 1.

15

If I recall correctly, NASA said this was bad for the ozone layer. But who cares, let's give more money to the richest people!

12
fedia.io

So, we're breathing in hundreds of thousands of pounds of vaporized e-waste pretty much constantly?

Fucking great, thanks.

12
lemmy.zip

Just wait until there's too many and they bounce off each other until there's nothing left but space debris, preventing the launch of more.

1
ayyyreply
sh.itjust.works

That is literally impossible in low earth orbit.

-1

You reached the end