Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚑ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 179 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#satellites#problem#group#upper#atmosphere#ozone#more#right#thing#hopefully

Discussion (5 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

bolangiβ€’about 1 hour ago
Satellites have many chlorinated and florinated chemicals, so being vaporized means introducing large volumes to the upper atmosphere where they can catalyze the destruction of ozone molecules. I'd be interested how the volume compares to other sources of atmospheric halogens. They could hardly match the quantity of refrigerant gases released, but being deposited directly in the upper atmosphere may make them more potent.
TeMPOraLβ€’about 1 hour ago
Good catch. I doubt it's even a rounding error right now, but with the space market undergoing a rather rapid growth (good thing!), it's a good time to start tracking this and hopefully address before it turns into a problem.
Loughlaβ€’22 minutes ago
>hopefully address before it turns into a problem.

Ron Howard's voice "They didn't."

But in all seriousness, there will be zero stomach for limiting launches for the ozone layer. I'm calling it now. Group 1 won't believe it's a problem. Group 2 will say it's just lefty elitists trying to ruin the economy. Group 3 will say there's no such thing as satellites.

Check back in 40 years. I bet I'm right.

piskovβ€’about 1 hour ago
What would be the number of reentries in the near future?

5-20 satellites daily?

At first glance, it seems negligible.

On the hand, given the intentional nature if disposable low-orbit, 20 more than ideal.

sscaryterryβ€’22 minutes ago
Waste of fucking money. The X that fall per year is nothing compared to the millions of tons of other pollution.