I'm updating satellite numbers for yet another talk.
There now 8,077 Starlink satellites in orbit, 1,240 have already been burned up in the atmosphere, depositing all their metal, plastic, and computer bits in the stratosphere as weird vapour (data from planet4589.org/space/con/conli…)
12,238 active satellites now catalogued. The fraction of Starlinks is actually holding pretty steady lately because so many other operators have started launching. Over 200 satellites launched this month.
This entry was edited (4 months ago)
reshared this
Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •It's been 3 days since I put in these numbers and just to make sure I am super angry as I go to bed, I checked again.
There area now 8,093 Starlink satellites in orbit, out of 12,308 total active satellites. 1,243 Starlink satellites have burned up.
As with almost everything else happening, this is so fucking stupid, and I'm going to keep yelling about it. To calm myself down, I'd go outside and look up, but guess what I'd see?
Who needs post-apocalyptic scifi books?
reshared this
earthling, Paul Sutton, Tedje, Misha and Patrick Hadfield reshared this.
M. Grégoire
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •MarjorieR
in reply to M. Grégoire • • •@mpjgregoire we'll probably lose the ozone layer first.
So slap on your SPF50.
Also unneccesary electrical emissions due to bad design are really mucking up ground based radio telescopes. It really is the wild west up there.
explorersweb.com/starlink-sate…
Starlink Satellites Are 'Leaking' Radio Emissions » Explorersweb
Reynier Squillace (Explorer's Web)Paul Sutton
in reply to MarjorieR • • •Great!! so they are not only getting in the way of optical telescopes and views of the cosmos, they are getting in the way of radio telescopes too.
This HAS TO STOP!!!!
David Mitchell
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •“1,243 Starlink satellites have burned up.”
Ooof… that’s a figure I haven’t seen yet. I wonder how many tons of aluminum and pounds of rare earth metals and the like that represents, injected into our upper atmosphere. 😞
Michael Busch
in reply to David Mitchell • • •@DavidM_yeg
Each Starlink masses between 250 kg (v1) and 1250 kg (v2).
So that is of order a hundred tons of aluminum dropped in the upper atmosphere.
Let's not let it get much worse: agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.co…
John Chapman
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to John Chapman • • •John Chapman
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to John Chapman • • •reshared this
Curmudgeon, Mastodon Migration and Patrick Hadfield reshared this.
John Chapman
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •Muro deGrizeco
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •@jaydax
Dunno, I don't feel particularly trapped on this planet. No plans to move.
But, yeah, the clown wrecking low earth orbit for centuries, just to provide low-latency internet mostly to unappreciative fish, that's just ugly. Seriously ugly.
John Chapman
in reply to Muro deGrizeco • • •Yes we do need to 'fix' the earth but this shouldn't be an either or scenario - lets do both.
David Fleetwood - RG Admin
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •John Chapman
in reply to David Fleetwood - RG Admin • • •Unworkable now - yes
Unworkable in the near future - no.
Rehabilitate earth OR make another planet habitable - Let's do both.
David Fleetwood - RG Admin
in reply to John Chapman • • •@jaydax There is no near future where space elevators work. There is no real or proposed material that can actually make up a lift that would not collapse under it's own weight. There are a ton of resources to look into this, but the long and the short of it is that it's not actually possible with any science or materials known today.
And no, even if an asteroid that size hit earth, it would *still* be more habitable than any other body in the solar system.
John Chapman
in reply to David Fleetwood - RG Admin • • •1. Diamond nanothread? First produced in 2014 and still under development. It's possible that a continuous thread could be fabricated in space from benzene.
2. About 13.5 billion years ago the earth was struck a glancing blow from a Mars size body and the moon was created. A repeat, though very unlikely, would not be survivable and would cause splash impacts throughout the inner solar system. We know there are interstellar wanderers that could do this. They don't even need to hit if they are massive such as a mini blackhole which could change the earth's orbit outside the goldilocks zone.
3. We assume we'll see smaller impactors and be able to take action but would we see them coming? Whe have had several extra-solar visitors which we didn't know about until they had passed.
David Fleetwood - RG Admin
in reply to John Chapman • • •@jaydax There are both papers and easier to digest youtube videos that address these points. The short answer is that the materials do not exist, including various forms of nanotubes, nothing we can produce would do what is needed and people do not understand the physics of those suggestions.
I'm not here to educate you, but please stop reading sci-fi while forgetting the second word is fiction for a reason. Space elevators are unlikely to ever exist. And Earth is easier by a lot
John Chapman
in reply to David Fleetwood - RG Admin • • •I do enjoy, and write, science fiction. I'm well aware of the fiction element.
You should be aware though that much of the science we have today was proposed first by science fiction authors. One such author, Arthur C Clarke, gave us communication satellites and also wrote about the filament required for space elevators.
Prof. Sam Lawler
in reply to David Fleetwood - RG Admin • • •John Chapman
in reply to Prof. Sam Lawler • • •If the earth was to face another interstellar wanderer such as the one which created the moon then Mars probably wouldn't be far enough away. Better to create an ark and send it into interstellar space.
John Chapman
in reply to David Fleetwood - RG Admin • • •Here's my concept for a more workable space elevator avestedinterest.info/technolog…
If Humans had the Immortality Gene …
John Chapman (JayDax)