141
SpaceX vaporizes 260 Starlink satellites in six months using Earth's atmosphere
(www.tomshardware.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
141 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
7009 readers
966 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
They've also been shown to have a not insignificant impact on the ozone. We're so fucked
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.
The increased frequency of rocket launches also hurts ozone from what I read in the studies done on satellite burn ups.
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
At least we can have the ctharsis of staking them out in the sun and watching them burn like the vampires they are.
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.
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.
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
There’s no way burning satellites are putting enough energy into the atmosphere to heat it up. They cause other problems like ozone degradation and serious aerosol pollution.
Rockets on the other hand put a lot of greenhouse gasses high up in the atmosphere, including incredibly potent greenhouse gasses like water vapor. These launches account for a meaningful percentage of all emissions.
You're not crashing the entire rocket, just a tiny bit of it. Also, generating direct energy has never been a climate change issue, it's the byproducts of that generating that are fucking us up.
As I said, only the energy of the satellite, not the entire rocket, which is a miniscule fraction of the energy the launch used.
Also pointing out that it really doesn't matter, in terms of energy, potential or otherwise. It's only the physical byproducts that can have any major impact.
Hundreds of tons of random natural space dust hit the atmosphere daily
Space dust has a different composition to artificial satellites however
Are you sure bout that?
Yeah. Look it up.
Troll harder, "Steve".
More than a hundred tons of meteors daily. Many meteors are made up of heavy metals. Iron. Nickel. And so forth.
I imagine most of that weight isn't the actual electronics, but the housing.
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.
That was not the point of my post.
What was then?
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.
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