this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
112 points (65.5% liked)

Technology

59197 readers
3234 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 126 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Absolutely debunked, FAA accepted a report that didn't do proper research and have been called out by SpaceX for it.

[–] [email protected] 57 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone downvoted you but you are correct. The report used assumptions based on satellites not even made of the same materials as starlink satellites.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/spacex-says-faa-is-wrong-about-starlink-satellite-debris-falling-to-earth/

Among other things, SpaceX said the FAA's debris estimates were based on a 23-year-old study of satellites that were made with different materials than Starlink satellites. SpaceX says its own satellites are designed to burn up completely when they reenter the atmosphere.

The FAA report to Congress did include a caveat that said, "If SpaceX is correct in reporting zero surviving debris, as SpaceX reports in FCC filings, and Starlink is a fully-demisable spacecraft, the rise in reentry risk is minimal over the current risk."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

“If SpaceX is ~~correct~~ honest in reporting zero surviving debris, as SpaceX reports in FCC filings, and Starlink is a fully-demisable spacecraft, the rise in reentry risk is minimal over the current risk.”

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I was going to say that there is no way that could be correct. There are only like 8000 satellites in orbit. There is no fucking way that small of a number is going to be hurting someone every couple years.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

The people that put sats up have to calculate how every component will burn up in the atmosphere before they even get approval. Simply put, there's basically no chance of anyone dying from these things reentering the atmosphere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol SpaceX. Why would I take them seriously?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Who wouldn't? They are doing some of the most advanced rocket science on the planet. Of course, trusting corporations statements and research is an entire topic of it's own. Taking Elon Musk seriously on the other hand...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because they are a corporation that is actively littering LEO with hundreds of satellites, and fear economic retribution and/or responsibility as a consequence of this kind of information?

You see how there might be something called "conflict of interest?"

Having a conflict of interest does not mean they aren't competent at what they do - just that they have reason to be biased against information that may result in direct consequence.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While SpaceX does launch and operate thousands of satellites, this also means that they stand to lose the most if LEO becomes cluttered with space junk. If anyone ought to be worried about space junk, it is the launch providers. If space junk becomes a problem, their customer base vanishes.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

Ok Thre-ElonMusk-eteers.

You keep gobbling that knob. Maybe daddy will pay attention to you one day