this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026

142 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

7484 readers

140 users here now

News community around technology, social media platforms, information technology and governmental policy surrounding it.

What doesn't fit here?

The core of the story has to be technology focused.

If article mentions "AI" in a sentence and then talks about business economics that doesn't make it tech news.
Gaming is too many layers removed from technology. There are many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
Transporation is too many layers removed from technology. EVs while use many cool technologies have many dedicated communities that are a better fit for it.
Entertainment is too many layers removed from technology. While sometimes it can fit here, business or cultural aspects of it are a better fit for dedicated communities.
Cybersecurity. While it heavily focuses on technology, most of the time it's too technical for most people who are not already invested in it. Should be posted in a dedicated communities unless it has broader connection to other tech areas.

Post guidelines

Title format

Post title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.

URL format

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

[Opinion] prefix

Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.

Country prefix

Country prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.

Rules

1. English only

Title and associated content has to be in English.

2. Use original link

Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.

3. Respectful communication

All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.

4. Inclusivity

Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

5. Ad hominem attacks

Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.

6. Off-topic tangents

Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.

7. Instance rules may apply

If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip

Icon attribution | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BrikoX@lemmy.zip

142

SpaceX vaporizes 260 Starlink satellites in six months using Earth's atmosphere (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 3 months ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.zip

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Starlink burns multiple retired satellites daily from its over 10,000-strong constellation

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 87 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Retrieving the deorbited satellites — which weigh roughly 573 to 650 pounds (260 to 295 kg) for first-generation units and 1,764 to 2,756 pounds (800 to 1,250 kg) for second-generation units — is technically impractical and financially unviable, according to the company. Hence, the incineration technique.

So that's 148,980 to 325,000 kilograms of electronics burned. Literally hundreds of tons of e-waste being incinerated by single corporation in just half a year.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 60 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They've also been shown to have a not insignificant impact on the ozone. We're so fucked

[–] Fuckswearwords@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Does puncturing through our upper atmosphere during escape have any non insignificant effects? I've seen some of those videos of launches at night (when the solar wind lights up everything) and it sure looks like we are burning holes in our ozone layer when we do that. Just asking you cause you seem somewhat knowledgeable.

[–] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Okay so I'm just into chemistry and astronomy as a hobby because I love learning, no expert. My understanding though.

The launches definitely aren't great but they're actually not the biggest issue. The problem is the satellites, when they're deorbited, generate 50+ lbs of aluminum oxide which just floats on the upper atmosphere for years (like 30 years). Aluminum oxide is an especially potent catalyst for ozone depletion. The mega constellations that Musk wants would require multiple satellites to be deorbited daily, quickly piling up the aluminum oxide. The low orbit internet satellites are relatively short lived. So he wants either Kessler syndrome or enough aluminum oxide to eat the ozone in a year

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

At least we can have the ctharsis of staking them out in the sun and watching them burn like the vampires they are.

[–] BurgerBaron@quokk.au 2 points 3 months ago

The increased frequency of rocket launches also hurts ozone from what I read in the studies done on satellite burn ups.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's a lot of electronics waste. Estimates for 2025 e-waste into landfills was around 65 million tons, and it continues to rise each year. It's not an either/or, we can complain about both, but the scale difference makes the first seem a bit less dramatic. We should do something about our throwaway society.

[–] Revolver1864@piefed.social 4 points 3 months ago

I work in IT and am resposible for e-recycle runs. I take the laptops home, re install windows, and give them away free to any poor person i come across.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Not just incinerated, incinerate red in the upper atmosphere while directly heating it.

They burn up from friction, it's not just the flames the whole process is heating the planet and who knows how many things it's fucking up we haven't noticed before.

But the most important bit is if they don't know how to get them down, they need to stop sending them up. It's not rocket appliances

[–] Steve@startrek.website 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Hundreds of tons of random natural space dust hit the atmosphere daily

[–] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Space dust has a different composition to artificial satellites however

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 1 points 3 months ago

More than a hundred tons of meteors daily. Many meteors are made up of heavy metals. Iron. Nickel. And so forth.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I imagine most of that weight isn't the actual electronics, but the housing.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 months ago

The housing isn't great to be burning either.

https://cires.colorado.edu/news/within-15-years-plummeting-satellites-could-release-enough-aluminum-alter-winds-temp

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I have a feeling if I lit truck load of old computers on fire in a quarry or something, arguing "When you think about it most of the e-waste was just metal PC cases so it doesn't count" would not fly in court.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That was not the point of my post.

[–] Sludgehammer@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What was then?

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Just that the number may be quite inflated, when referring to electronics. It's still bad. Especially as someone else pointed out that the housing may be problematic as well.

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 35 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm so glad the FCC keeps giving them money for rural broadband grants instead of giving more to local PUDs. It warms my soul to know that tons of electronics are getting unevenly burned in our atmosphere.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Don't you just love the smell of space junk?

[–] EtherTide@aussie.zone 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm pretty sure that de-orbiting and incinerating the satellites cleans up space junk and prevents Kessler syndrome. Launching that constellation into space in the first place, on the other hand...

[–] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

De-orbiting space junk is exactly akin to Samsung starting a recycling program where they just take everything and light it on fire.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Sure it does. Doesn't mean this is good for anyone.

[–] Bieren@lemmy.today 16 points 3 months ago

This is how they were designed out of the gate. This isn’t a new problem. This was their solution from day 1.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So, we're breathing in hundreds of thousands of pounds of vaporized e-waste pretty much constantly?

Fucking great, thanks.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not just us! Also the dolphins and terns. Everything else is okay tho

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

Well, as long as we don't take a tern for the worse.

[–] BanMeFromPosting@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago

If it makes you feel any better; Starlink is also destroying the ozone layer

[–] dawcas@scribe.disroot.org 13 points 3 months ago

If I recall correctly, NASA said this was bad for the ozone layer. But who cares, let's give more money to the richest people!

[–] corbindallas@fedinsfw.app 4 points 3 months ago

Don't look up

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just wait until there's too many and they bounce off each other until there's nothing left but space debris, preventing the launch of more.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That is literally impossible in low earth orbit.

[–] mooglepom@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

It has been a concern for many years, not aware of changes in thoughts on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome