No one knows really because no one’s watching how many satellites burn up, but we do know the gasses created by them are more powerful GHG’s than methane, not to mention CO2.
i mean… we do definite track how many satellites burn up
and really it’s a drop in the bucket. we release over 35b tonnes of CO2 alone… at ~$2000/kg to LEO, that’s… well let’s just say we aren’t getting even 1 millionth of that into orbit per year all up - the effect would have to be so huge that it’s not going to go unnoticed even from a “finger in the air” scenario
that’s not to say it’s not good, but it’s not a compelling argument
These satellites are generally too low for Kessler. If they become non functional or crash, they’ll burn in the atmosphere.
Which also creates metallic gasses that warm the atmosphere.
More than cars already do?
Surprisingly a single falcon 9 rocket is only 73 passenger cars per year I thought it would be mich more, so guess cars are indeed much bigger problem
No one knows really because no one’s watching how many satellites burn up, but we do know the gasses created by them are more powerful GHG’s than methane, not to mention CO2.
i mean… we do definite track how many satellites burn up
and really it’s a drop in the bucket. we release over 35b tonnes of CO2 alone… at ~$2000/kg to LEO, that’s… well let’s just say we aren’t getting even 1 millionth of that into orbit per year all up - the effect would have to be so huge that it’s not going to go unnoticed even from a “finger in the air” scenario
that’s not to say it’s not good, but it’s not a compelling argument
It could still cause a multi year problem, just not for decades or centuries.