this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
27 points (71.4% liked)
Astronomy
573 readers
1 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
what does she mean by "re-entered"? does it mean "burned in the atmosphere"? if so, i don't really see the problem.
As I understand it, and that understanding could be flawed, burning up a lot of satellites containing a lot of substances not usually found in our upper atmosphere may have consequences. No-one has done the due diligence to know whether this is the case or not. Or if these consequences would be significant for us.
Also, "re-entered" might not mean burning up fully.
so lets maybe not raise the god of apocalypse. these satellites are really small objects, their volume is absolutely insignificant to the bullshit we create down here on the sea level...
Agreed. This would be in line with the many meteor showers we have... which arguably could contain more "unknown" substances than what we mined out of our own crust.
This feels a bit more like a bit of fear mongering than actual reporting / science.
There are many reasons to be concerned with what we have in orbit... this isn't one of them.
I hardly think a post by some random (me) is "raising the god of the apocalypse". But that's sweet of you to say <3
And you are correct that there are significant other issues, with known effects, that need to be addressed as well.
Have you compared it to the amount of meteors that enters the earth’s atmosphere daily? That’s on average 48.5 tons. Every day. Those are made up of silicates, carbon, metals, all kinds of stuff.
i meant the hysterical "This. Is. Insane. We. Must. Stop. Launching. Shit. NOW. "