this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
959 points (91.7% liked)

Technology

70995 readers
3369 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 news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 285 points 1 day ago (33 children)

Yeah I mean the tax payers have literally already paid for all of both SpaceX and Starlink. The public paid for it, the public should own it.

[–] bulwark@lemmy.world 91 points 1 day ago (32 children)

They're just following in the footsteps of Comcast. The FCC gave SpaceX/Starlink $885.5 million to provide rural broadband after they gave Comcast over $1 billion less than 5 years ago to do the same thing. Starlink actually works out there from what I understand, so I guess that's something.

[–] Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 102 points 1 day ago (30 children)

The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we're talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth's atmosphere, not being recycled.

Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.

[–] Thorry84 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You are right in how wasteful it is, especially since it turned out a lot of those satellites don't even make it to 4 years.

However there is zero risk of space trash with Starlink. They orbit so low, it's basically within the atmosphere still. They need to constantly boost themselves, otherwise they fall down and burn up. So these satellites are coming down within years all on their own, even without any controlled disposal.

It's insanely wasteful, but it keeps SpaceX in business launching every week, which is kind of the point. But at least there isn't a Kessler syndrome waiting to happen.

[–] trailee@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even though it’s not a space trash problem, it is a regular upper atmosphere polluter of aluminum oxide ash. We don’t yet know the long term consequences.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s not enough, but I would bet it might have a cooling effect as it reflects more light in the upper atmosphere.

But we should really still make sure, and more importantly not trust Elon with any data flowing over those satellites.

[–] trailee@sh.itjust.works 7 points 23 hours ago

It might! But the article I linked also suggests it might destroy ozone and have a net warming effect. We just don’t know. The upper atmosphere has never before had this level of direct pollution injection.

load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)