- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
This wccftech article is pretty loose and doesn’t provide much citations. I also have a very low opinion of wccftech.
But I’m also asking if anyone has more links and/or data to this story? Most people at RealTesla knows that Starlink satellites are at a low orbit, so there’s a high chance that they fall out of the sky (and they are expected to fall out of the sky on a regular basis). But hopefully this can be the start of a good discussion backed with more legitimate sources.
EDIT: The focus should be on the following paragraph:
It shows that as of July 15, 353 Starlink satellites had burnt up in the atmosphere, and this figure jumped by more than 200 spacecraft to 568 satellites as of the latest readings. As a comparison, only 248 satellites had burned up at the start of this year, so the number destroyed during the last two months is higher than the figure for the first seven months of the year.
You must log in or register to comment.
We need a satellite alternative to starlink sooner than later.
No. We need high-speed internet to large amounts of people (including poor people). That’s the actual goal.
I don’t care if we accomplish it with fiber, 5G towers, long-distance WiFi, or god-damn barbed-wire telephone (a thing in the late 1800s / early 1900s to get telephones out to rural folk). Any solution should be on the table, and overemphasizing the means is a mistake.
No one needs “satellite internet”. People need “internet”. There’s a big difference, and an over-focus on satellites is a mistake.
If Starlink just goes up and burns itself out over the next 5 years, so be it. Let the colossal waste of money be a testament to the idiocy and hubris of man. The last thing we want to do is repeat the mistake like a damn lemming (no offense to us Lemmy users, lol).
While this is true. A lot of us travel and using other sources such as Nomad Internet which has it’s limitations.