Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "How 100,000 Satellites Will Change Earth Forever by 2040" video.

We need to start using them as raw material for orbital construction.
52
Vid says "There isn't any protocol for removing old satellites from orbit." That's incomplete and misleading. Modern satellites for LEO reserve enough station keeping fuel to deorbit themselves. This is where there are the most satellites and the least volume in which to put them. Satellites for higher orbits can't do this. But satellites for important limited orbits like GSO, can use their station keeping thrusters to get out of the way to a storage orbit to make room for new satellites.
36
@maxvonh We have more forests now than we did in the recent past. That won't change unless we cut them down to make room for solar and wind farms.
11
@PK1312 What could be mysterious about these mechanisms? Orbital mechanics and station keeping thrusters, like +Sean Sargeant says.
2
@alanivar2752 There is no reason, other than wealth prejudice to lump Bezos and Musk in together. Their methods and motivations are worlds apart.
1
The ultimate solution to this problem is orbital salvage, recovering these satellites for use as raw materials for building bigger things in orbit, which is also a partial solution for the problem of the cost of transporting materials up to orbit for orbital construction (along with Moon and asteroid mines). These few bigger constructs built would have a much smaller orbital cross section than the defunct satellites they're made from, in accordance with the cube/square scaling law.
1
@alanivar2752 Try to keep up, I don't pace the class to the slower kids.
1
@alanivar2752 I know billionaire haters have an echo chamber, it is the empowered political philosophy in academe and the media. Where is mine?
1
@alanivar2752 "do you even know what the conversation is?" To bring you up to date, the thread is about satellite proliferation and space debris. You broadened it with a vague attack on Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. I addressed the main topic and challenged you on Elon Musk. You haven't replied coherently. I don't even know exactly what I said that you object to (I said several things). A personal attack on me doesn't convey that information.
1
@alanivar2752 But you have wasted your time. What you have not done is engage my arguments (other than calling them names).
1
@alanivar2752 I challenged your assertions, you called me stupid.
1
@alanivar2752 The entire thread is there for objective review. What is the point of denying it? Let the reader decide.
1
@maxvonh I said that (in the US) there is no long-term trend for deforestation. And that we would have to change that to change over to a solar/wind power infrastructure. Nothing you have said contradicts this. The increase in forest fires is a result of a new policy of "hands off" forestry management. We've stopped clearing brush. Bad policy not warmer temperature.
1
@jjbarajas5341 Yea, part of it is state governments, Cali in particular, but basically right.
1