[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Their rule doesn't allow "net negative". They went with "no new positive, no matter how much it helps elsewhere". Any new type of pollution would be prohibited, so the (agreed) significant improvement of switching coal to wind power generation would be disallowed ... showing that it's a bad rule to choose.

That used to be argument when it came to burning fossil fuels for locomotion, then look what happened.

Wind power is net negative in pollution. It’s not replacing one source with another equal source aka carbon credits.

Why not both?

Otherwise all you’ve done is stand still (say the pollution reduced by shutting down a single coal plant is negated by the pollution from all the satellites).

That doesn’t answer the question of what impact if any all the satellites will have.

While it is true that it is rare to "sense" kidney function decline, it is a trivial matter to detect with blood and urine tests. If you get a blood test every year as part of routine screening, you will catch kidney disease as soon as it begins.

[removed]

Also, another thing that can be done to get an idea of how problematic the materials the satellite is made of might be depends on this pretty convenient chart of common spacecraft metals and their thermal conductivity: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

If an object starts in space and you assume it's at an ambient temp of 2.7K, you can test different values of the distance travelled through the atmosphere, m. Then you have the amount of energy absorbed per degree, so factor in the energy absorption rate of the metal, and you have how long it takes for it to aerosolize. In this case, if the particles added by the object do end up being problematic to the climate, we would want to make sure that they're being aerosolized as close to the surface of the earth as possible.

So best case scenario, it exits the atmosphere before the amount of light being blocked can do any harm. (Ref. https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/news/the-dirt-atmospheric-dust)

Worst case scenario, it subtracts a few years from the time left we have to solve this problem before getting sent into an ice age.

[removed]

[removed]

They are looking for 100 launches this year, so the 10 launches a month number could be feasible

[removed]

I'm going to post a comment I found on a chemistry youtube video. Basically the youtuber made a joke about how chemicals often turn yellow after reaction and a commenter explained why in chemistry terms.

"Regarding 13:23 - I'm sure you already know it, but for anyone who wonders: many organic stuff are yellow because they have a lot of conjugated bonds in them (in the case of the imine here the bezene ring is conjugated to the nitrogen via its free electron pairs). This causes the electronic excitation energy to drop, bringing it from the close UV range into the visible range, i.e. the molecule absorbs deep-blue/violet photons, and we're left with a yellowish-looking product."

Which in all honesty I don't know how applicable this is to the urine we produce but was interested if anyone could confirm or deny it for me here.

[deleted]

[removed]

Just test the mechanism, for example, does wearing a mask in a controlled setting decrease Covid particles in the air etc. Or, if you have to do population studies, have like an entire group wear mask and look at a Covid rates/sick days etc compared to a group that doesn’t wear mask

> we will have no effective way of shutting off the rain of Starlink satellites

To this point, if we wanted to stop the 'starlink rain': The satellites have small ion engines that are used to enter and maintain the correct low earth orbit. Depending on available fuel, it may be possible to raise them into a significantly higher orbit. (This might end their usefulness as Starlink). At a high enough orbit, objects take decades or longer to return.

Maybe someone knows the typical delta-V these things have and how much is needed to raise an object to a typical 'graveyard orbit'.

Do satellites really have that much of an impact where they could potentially cool down the earth?

You're missing the point. Yes, those materials may be naturally occurring in the earth's crust, but so is carbon. We don't know the effects of this, and it should be studied way before we just allow them to dump tons of new pollution into the atmosphere. The current method is also exceptionally wasteful, I don't understand the waving away of people's concerns. These issues need to be addressed now, not when they become disasters.

When that satellite burns up, those resources are just wasted. We need a real plan to deal with space junk. Burning our waste is part of what put us in this mess. It needs to stop being the default solution. Is the internet so vital that we should continue the practices that put us in the environmental mess we find ourselves in currently?

Fossil fuel consumption is absolutely an issue that needs to be addressed, I am saying we need to be watchful of new waste and wasteful practices. I don't want my grandchildren asking me why we let them poison the sky.

I wish I knew how to properly express my concerns. I live in a state whose fish are poisoned with mercury from the logging industry. There are areas where landfills poisoned the ground. Whole towns smell like rotten eggs because the mills have poisoned the air and water. Everyone let it happen because other issues seemed more pressing. Now the mills are dead or dying, the landfills are leaking, and those responsible are long gone or already rich enough to not care. We are losing trees to invasive species and diseases because folks and companies have more pressing issues.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]