• Zetta@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I agree fiber is better but starlink isn’t bad for the environment, it’s bad for astronomy though sadly.

    • frizop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      starlink isn’t bad for the environment

      Umm, yes it is.

      https://www.science.org/content/article/burned-satellites-are-polluting-atmosphere

      In 2023, Murphy and colleagues reported the first direct evidence of how satellite re-entries are changing the composition of the stratosphere, based on data from a NASA WB-57 aircraft that flew from Alaska to altitudes of 19 kilometers. Using an onboard laser mass spectrometer, they found tiny droplets of sulfuric acid containing 20 different elements that likely came from satellites and rockets, as they were present in ratios that matched those of spacecraft alloys. The amounts of lithium, aluminum, copper, and lead all exceeded the estimated contributions from meteors.

    • ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Those satellites are designed for a 5 year lifespan before they deorbit and burn up all those metals in our atmosphere… it’s not great