Trigger Warning: Community contains mostly bad environmental news (not by choice!). Community may also feature stories about animal agriculture and/or meat. Until tagging is available, please be aware and click accordingly.

🪲

Aussie Zone Rules.

Golden rule - be nice. If you wouldn’t say it in front of your ~~grandmother~~ favourite tree, don’t post it.
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. You are allowed to denigrate invasive plants or animals.
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here. Except invasive plants or animals.
No porn. Except photos of plants. Definitely not animals.
No Ads / Spamming. Except for photos or stories about plants and animals.
Nothing illegal in Australia. Like invasive plants or animals. Exotic microbes and invasive fungi also not welcome.
Make post titles descriptive with no swear words. Comments are a free for all using the above rules as a guide. Fuck invasive plants and animals.

🐝

/c/Aussie Environment acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land, sea and waters, of the area that we live and work on across Australia. We acknowledge their continuing connection to their culture and pay our respects to their Elders past and present.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

zero_gravitas@aussie.zone

Earth’s Orbit Is Now Full of Satellites (aussie.zone)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by arbilp3@aussie.zone to c/environment@aussie.zone

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A short video for those of you who may want to know more about the satellites orbiting our planet. I believe we should be demanding transparency from authorities and a night sky treaty. We are being attacked from every angle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOFFF0TnvwE

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 8 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Imagine if thousands of unmarked vehicles were driving through your neighbourhood each day, and you had no idea who's driving them, what's in them, or where they were going

Um that's exactly the case for cars, I'm not sure if this analogy really works.

Also, if you're wondering why they don't bang into each other, well the animation really exaggerates the size of them. It's nowhere near that crowded. There is way more space up there in orbit than there is on earth. Imagine if we had 4x the land area and only 11,000 cars, it would be very sparse. The risk isn't the current satellites it's the huge increase in launches that's forecast to rise exponentially.

The video also seems to conclude that it's difficult to detect the satellites, but we need to for national security, but also it interferes in astronomy, and there is research to make them harder to detect. I feel dumb as I don't really understand what the point is the video is making? That we should make them harder to detect or get better at detecting them? Both?

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I agree with you about unmarked vehicles analogy, I thought the same as you.

I thought improving the satellites 'transparency' was so that scientists could more easily see what's happening beyond them. But, yeh, the video could certainly be clearer.

With what you say about satellite launches growing exponentially in the future, we need to be better informed so we can demand from our governments duty of care (am I being naive? probably). Do you know if there is any citizen organisation that looks into this? Please let us know if you do.

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm not aware of any, no.

I'm a bit confused about the call to action on the video, because they spend a chunk of the video talking about the important of identifying the satellite and then another chunk talking about making them harder to detect. I'm confused as to what the author wants us to think or do based on the information given.

[–] arbilp3@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Perhaps you can ask the author if you're interested.

load more comments (1 replies)