• hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Alternatives would be great! My only concern is the number of satellites that have to be continually launched while older satellites are burned up after just five years. That’s thousands of satellites per service provider having to be continually replaced. Seems wasteful, but maybe I’m thinking the resource usage is greater than it really is in the grand scheme of things.

    • Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      That five year figure is the time it takes to deorbit if the satellite goes dead, not the lifespan, from my understanding.

    • kebab@endlesstalk.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Well if Europe doesn’t do this, US or China will regardless and they won’t care about leaving junk in the space. So it’s a matter of who will profit off that. And also, the EU is doing a lot for the environment already. Maybe it’s time for other countries like India to stop throwing trash directly into rivers now? We live on the same planet. Even if EU achieves the zero-emission state, it only accounts for 5% of the population in the world, so it won’t change that much on a global scale if other countries continue refusing to cooperate