386
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 57 points 3 weeks ago

As was always the plan for these satellites.

The article raises a vague concern about Kessler syndrome. This is exactly why these satellites are designed to deorbit once their useful lifespan is finished. I don't see what the point of this article is at all.

[-] gnate@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Part of the plan, sure, but that doesn't mean it's a good plan. They don't have control of where the debris lands, and Starlink doesn't take responsibility for cleanup when it lands on others' property.

[-] prodigalsorcerer@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 weeks ago

The debris will be microscopic. It won't "land" anywhere noticeable.

The fine particulate matter may not be great for the ozone layer, but it's actually pretty negligible compared to all of the other pollution that we're not addressing either. That doesn't justify the pollution, but hopefully it helps contextualize it.

[-] gnate@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

Per the article, sometimes they burn up, sometimes they don't.

The big culprit I was remembering isn't Starlink, but SpaceX, with the debris being potentially lethal (over 6 feet, too heavy for one person to move.)

From the same professor: https://wlos.com/news/local/professor-spacexs-lack-of-accountability-for-space-debris-frustrating-nasa-samantha-lawlwer-university-of-regina-saskatchewan-canada

Musk's companies are notorious for lack of responsibility. At least Cards Against Humanity held they're get to the fire for a minute.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

SpaceX has made changes in the past so the dishes break up better. That could have been one of the earlier dishes, but maybe it was also one of the ones that failed to properly insert into orbit which changed the re-entry characteristics?

The big things like you mentioned wouldn't be starlink. That'd be from something larger like a 2nd stage that came back down and didnt fully burn up. Thats a risk with everyone, mega constellation or not.

Luckily, starship will be fully reusable which will prevent that, but the trade off is, if starship is successful, a failure during re entry is going to risk having a vehicle designed not to burn up, land somewhere it shouldn't.

Similar risks to the shuttle if it blew up, but these will be flying much more frequently

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 7 points 3 weeks ago

I ran into this dramatization for media hits before, with the complaint about rocket launches and their contribution to pollution. People were all about getting out the pitchforks, especially since it was mainly about Elon Musk, but when the actual numbers were mentioned (very small), suddenly, I was the bad guy. No one likes real facts.

Now, should we be launching so many things that are designed to fall back down so soon? Probably not, that's the mark of a disposable society in high gear. But how we're doing things, and why, should be the focus, not a headline that makes it sound like things are falling out of the sky to hit people.

[-] applebusch 2 points 3 weeks ago

Having spent some time doing licensing work for an orbital vehicle, the reason the reentries are uncontrolled is pretty stupid bureaucratic bullshit. Because of the way the licensing process works, its much easier to get an uncontrolled reentry license than a controlled reentry license. The FAA claims to prefer controlled reentry so the debris comes down in some uninhabited part of the ocean, but because they make it way easier to get a license for an uncontrolled reentry thats what everyone does. Being the FAA it takes forever to change anything, so maybe they'll change the rules shortly after its too late to matter.

[-] gnate@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Ah, fascinating. That tracks, I was just realizing that about our local DOT this morning. Registration is enforced more strictly than inspections, so they can't be said to be prioritizing safety!

[-] rants_unnecessarily@piefed.social 4 points 3 weeks ago

Fear mongering for ad money is the point

this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2026
386 points (100.0% liked)

World News

56081 readers
2176 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS