this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
523 points (98.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6790 readers
721 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
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
Several things can be true at the same time.
Starlink exists to give SpaceX nongovernment launches to boost its numbers and make it look good as a stock.
It also happens to provide a service at what is almost certainly a loss, considering each satellite only lasts a few years and thus requires a constant stream of replacements to be launched.
It also happens to fill the sky with a bunch of garbage that will inevitably hit something and lead to a spray of even more garbage.
OK, so you do get they're in decaying orbits. Good.
What garbage? You just said they decay. Be consistent. There's plenty of reason to not like them. Kessler syndrome isn't one.
All that needs to happen is that 2 Starlink satellites collide, and then the debris won't stay at the same elevation. It will still be on a decaying orbit, but it might hit something on a more stable orbit further up before it comes down. And the debris from the second collision won't come down to earth anytime soon.
Sure, if a collision happens (unlikely while under control) then another collision happens (also unlikely, space is big) then sure some debris could go into a non-decaying orbit. That's true for all satellites. Should we just not launch any because it could make things harder for other satellites?
Starlink is very unlikely to cause debris, and any debris it may cause, if any happens at all, is unlikely to cause any future problems because odds are it'd decay even faster. In the unlikely event everything goes wrong, it could cause minor issues, the same as any satellite.
Pretty much every service in the tech industry runs at a loss for a long time, that's nothing special.