Comments
thruster_fuel69 t1_isk17l6 wrote
Don't worry, garbage burns up in the atmosphere! That's the argument I get when I raise this topic.
TheHermitofHuron t1_isk1i6u wrote
I am not defending humanity here, but I dont know if you really understand the scale of just our solar system. We could not possibly create enough garbage, even if humanity made it its sole preoccupation, to noticably "pollute" our solar system.
Also, if we could get it into orbit on a trajectory to the sun, that problem would solve itself.
Oceans are barely puddles next to the open space just between the inner planets.
Adeldor t1_isk1ziq wrote
The garbage here is not around the solar system. It's in the article. Assuming it's not manufactured outrage, the author demonstrates a misunderstanding on the scale of things so extreme it approaches a Monty Python parody.
For his example of Mars, the surface area of which approximates all the land mass of Earth, he writes with apparent concern:
> "... we’ve dumped an estimated15,694 pounds of trash on Mars from the past 50 years of exploration alone."
That's roughly five cars - in an area the size of Asia, Africa, the Americas, Australia, Europe, and Antarctica combined.
For vivid perspective, this image shows the Earth (and Moon, but too close to separate in that single pixel) and its immediate neighborhood in the solar system, taken by Voyager 1 in 1990. Were the whole planet fragmented into garbage, it would make no meaningful difference at such scales.
BlakHearted t1_isk2211 wrote
I hoped this article was talking about trash in orbit, but it wasn’t. It’s mostly about trash on Mars and the moon, which is a more pressing issue than human waste floating in the immensity of the solar system. However that’s not what the title really implies, is my complaint?
zenith654 t1_isk2buj wrote
I agree with your first part, but a trajectory to the sun takes so much more propellant than most things
gropethegoat t1_isk31zn wrote
I’m outraged, are you?
TheHermitofHuron t1_isk3mdr wrote
I know it isnt practical.
I am saying if humanity could create enough waste that it was a problem in the vacuum of space, pushing it towards the sun would solve the problem.
Which we do not have the means to pollute the vacuum of space, so I am saying if we did, the technology to send the debris in a specific direction would probably not be a far stretch.
ramen_poodle_soup t1_isk3zie wrote
It’s also not like the trash on Mars is empty bottles and McDonald’s wrappers, it’s parts of spacecraft that were often necessary for descent. There isn’t exactly a feasible way to bring back a drogue chute and recycle it.
zenith654 t1_isk47g9 wrote
Low Earth Orbit is already pretty polluted actually. It’s just that this article talks about planetary bodies and interplanetary orbits which is way more vast
Gohanangered t1_isk6fuh wrote
This is a joke. Why because there's a reason why space is called space. Even if we took all garbage on earth and dumped it into space. It wouldn't be able to fill up space whats so ever. XD
[deleted] t1_isk7jho wrote
[removed]
76thColangeloBurner t1_isk8uup wrote
Maybe a stupid question but I’ve always wondered this; could we recycle most space junk if / when we get there?
I understand things left behind couldn’t be taken with. If in 100 or 1000 years we have a colony on Mars couldn’t they realistically recycle that stuff?
SaucyNeko t1_isk9br4 wrote
the first step in logical colonization of mars is to send multiple ships of pure cargo that are unloaded and then deconstructed, easily able to be made into something else
MstrTenno t1_isk9tmy wrote
I would even say that calling parts that are extremely necessary for scientific exploration "trash" is stupid AF.
Plus who cares? So far Earth is the only planet that has an ecosystem. "Polluting" a sterile, irradiated, place that can't support life isn't really damaging anything.
Idk why OP posted this trash article.
hardervalue t1_isk9w74 wrote
>Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.
>
> - Douglas Adams
The average distance between large asteroids in the asteroid belt is far greater than the distance from Earth to the Moon. In many cases it's larger than the distance between Earth and Mars.
[deleted] t1_isk9w64 wrote
[deleted]
TheHermitofHuron t1_iskawt3 wrote
We do not inhabit anywhere in the solar system outside of earths orbit.
Also, you say you understand the scale, but I dont think you understand the scale.
I absolutely think if/when we get to other planets we will trash them. Though none of it will matter on a cosmic scale in any way. like we could have a galaxy wide civilization of hundreds of planets all spinning out garbage with no attempt at recycling and still it wouldnt even register as a rounding error as far as calculating the amount if space it occupies.
We are great at trashing planets. It would take gods to trash intersteller space in a noticable way.
KuijperBelt t1_iskd0vc wrote
Your words have just started irreversible Martian climate change.
Greta is en route - shelter in place & prepare for your woke atonement
SunStockMan t1_iskfn6y wrote
One thing that we have learned over the years is that humans know how to create waste
Voodoo_Masta t1_iskgkwf wrote
By the time we get there that stuff may have historic or even archaeological significance. IF we get there, which I don’t think is a guarantee.
mynextthroway t1_iskk0je wrote
I really don't see how this is an outrage article. The concern about waste is a little exaggerated, but warranted. LEO is getting cluttered to the point that India, China and the US are taking steps to do something. A brief bout of antisatellite warefare could render LEO dangerous to unusable. Doesn't matter how pristine outer space is if we can't get out of orbit.
The amount of debris on Mars being "only" a few cars worth, but the point is we aren't even there yet. Of course I wouldn't have expected NASA to arrange to bring it home, and I suspect when we actually get there, the trash will be recycled at some point and the probes enshrined in a museum. But we need to make sure we consider our trash being left around unacceptable.
I think the concern about contamination is very real in the search for life. As the population on Mars grows, that search will wind down. Certainly once the first children are born. They contaminate everything .
Yes. Space is huge. We aren't going to trash it to bad to fast. But then again, the wise in my childhood claimed protection of the atmosphere wasn't needed, it was to big for us to impact, as was the ocean. But now, 50 years and 4 billion more people later, we know differently. We will be lucky to stumble around between Earth and Moon (maybe Mars) in my or your life time. We need to make sure we don't leave a mess for future space travelers to complain about. If a paint chip can do the damage it does at low speed, hitting a discarded 2024 rocket booster at .5 C is going to hurt.
We need to establish the mentality of recycling, efficiency, and cleaning up after ourselves from day one of our journey to the stars. Easier to establish it now than when we have 1,000,000 people living off world. We have a long way to go before we reach the point of unlimited resources and energy promised in sci-fi. Let's act like it.
bucamel t1_iskl9u8 wrote
I was telling someone something similar when i heard this brought up a while ago. You could fit all the stuff we’ve left up there in a large garage/small warehouse.
SpaceInMyBrain t1_iskw1fh wrote
A lot of that stuff will be in museum displays. Few people have any idea how many pieces of "junk" the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum stored. Even the scraps of landing systems now on Mars will end up in research museums.
When more stuff is landed on Mars - every gram will be precious due to the cost of getting a gram of anything to Mars. It will be utilized early on.
SpaceInMyBrain t1_iskxbnk wrote
These articles raising "alarm" about space garbage are mostly idiotic attempts to get some attention for the author. Take a non-issue and add some environmentalist trigger words - boom, you're published. A few scraps on Mars are not a problem. When humans are establishing a long term presence - well, show me a place humans live where they don't produce garbage, even eco-aware communities. The point is to have a back-up place for humans to live, not preserve a pristine Mars. Anyway, we all know almost every gram of material will be precious on Mars and recycled to the max.
simcoder t1_isl2609 wrote
I think Mars is mostly just ego. It won't ever be a backup for humanity. That's just desperation talking.
WholeSilent8317 t1_islbdty wrote
mars and the moon are in the solar system.
Tomycj t1_isljv7f wrote
It doesnt have to be an egoistic backup. Some people just like exploration, challenge, science, even tourism.
Tomycj t1_islk2uj wrote
Humanity is becoming more efficient, not less. We produce far less waste per product than in the past. It's just that we produce more (edit for clarity: more products).
Tomycj t1_islk92w wrote
A planet made of waste would actually be full of useful industrial resources.
cjameshuff t1_islkae4 wrote
Even that's understating it a bit. You could put 5 other objects in Earth's orbit around the sun, as far from their neighbors (including Earth) as they are from the sun.
And asteroid sizes roughly follow a power law, with many, many more small asteroids than large ones. The sixth most massive asteroid has only 2% of the mass of the 5 most massive asteroids, which together hold over 60% of the mass of the entire belt. You could put 60% of the belt's mass in Earth's orbit without any of it getting closer to Earth than to any of the other objects or the sun itself.
cjameshuff t1_islkm7w wrote
Another number that gives some perspective: over six times that mass of meteoric material hits Earth each day.
SunStockMan t1_islmbwv wrote
According to the United Nations report on waste, only 7 countries have reduced waste over the last 10 years with the United States leading the way. China, India, Nigeria and several others have increased the amount of garbage dumped into land fills and the ocean by more than 25%.
RubyFox003 t1_islroqr wrote
Its not a pressing issue at all... imagine dropping a small droplet of oil into the Oceans. Thats how much it would matter if Humanity dumped all of its trash into the planets of the solar system like a thousand times. Space is big and dead, trash doesnt matter unless its in Earth orbit
BlakHearted t1_isltadl wrote
I meant contamination more than I’m concerned about space litter. If some kind of life exists on Mars (or I guess the moon in some super far fetched scenario), the things we leave there could potentially impact that life. There are protocols to mitigate this, I just meant pressing in comparison to the idea that this space litter would accumulate to become an issue.
[deleted] t1_islte8s wrote
[removed]
simcoder t1_islxihh wrote
Considering the situation we find ourselves in, I think you kind of have to lean on the ego end of it to want to spend all the energy and resources to get someone to Mars. Whether it's for the tourism or science.
Bang for buck-wise, remote exploration is orders of magnitude cheaper and less resource/energy intensive.
Tomycj t1_ismt1xj wrote
> only 7 countries have reduced waste over the last 10 years with the United States leading the way
That's according to what I said. You are talking in absolute terms, I'm talking in relative terms. It's weird you didn't understand, please read with more care my previous comment.
My point is that we've become better at producing useful things, not at producing waste. Waste is a byproduct that we're getting better at avoiding, for a given amount of production.
Tomycj t1_ismt7d2 wrote
> I think you kind of have to lean on the ego end of it to want to spend all the energy and resources to get someone to Mars
...not at all? what makes you think that? The clickbait, ill-informed, misinformative articles hating on elon musk or jeff bezos?
simcoder t1_ismxr3t wrote
The world has changed. It'll take some time for the reality to catch up to everyone. But suffice to say that grand space exploration plans are going to have to take a back seat to human affairs back here on Earth. Whether we like that unfortunate reality or not.
I think you can still maybe do some exploration and so forth but it will have to be the best bang for the buck type stuff. And it's probably going to be hard to find the money even for that.
Tomycj t1_ismyty7 wrote
> Whether we like that unfortunate reality or not.
No, precisely the opposite is happening: whether you like it or not, some people is spending their own efforts into visiting, or even colonizing, the planet Mars. But even then, 99.99% of the world's efforts are focused on helping the world. And it even is arguable that some of the efforts towards Mars, help our planet aswell.
By saying it's going to be hard to get money for it, you're admitting that most of our efforts are going towards other things, so you have nothing to worry about.
simcoder t1_isn2nkd wrote
Elon has never really stated where all the Mars money is going to come from.
But the implication is that some govt is going to foot the vast, vast majority of the bill. If that is the case then it's almost assured that we won't be colonizing Mars likely for the rest of the century. We'll be lucky to get the moon landing that we were promised. But I wouldn't be surprised if even that gets usurped by current events (or delayed on an ongoing basis indefinitely).
Tomycj t1_isn432q wrote
>Elon has never really stated where all the Mars money is going to come from.
Yes, he totally has: SpaceX and Starlink. Why were you so confident about the opposite? The starship program is well funded, and starlink hasn't even started to produce profits yet (expected at 30B/y).
>some govt is going to foot the vast, vast majority of the bill
Not the case, given the clarification above.
>or delayed on an ongoing basis indefinitely
Musk has said exactly the same: we have a window, but we don't know how long is it going to be open for, so he's got a sense of hurry for that reason.
simcoder t1_isn59wf wrote
SpaceX is the transport company. Starlink is going to get spun off/cashed out if it ever gets profitable.
And Elon's gone to great length explaining how SpaceX is not the colony company. That's some other ambiguous organization, the funding of which has never really been disclosed.
The fans love to point to how Starlink was going to pay for everything Mars related (although they've gotten much more coy about that recently). But that's never really been clearly stated. And about the only hard thing you have is an ambiguous comment by Shotwell. And even if you did transfer all the profit from Starlink over to the Mars colony, it would still be a drop in the bucket.
So the implication is that some govt at some point is going to pony up the trillions of dollars in perpetuity. Which could not be any more early 2000's type thinking as compared to the present day.
noseboy1 t1_isnb6sf wrote
Seriously, I think a lot of people in this discussion are overlooking the fact that waste at its core could be a resource.
We're far from this being a problem, but eventually in a multi planet society we might have to start considering the impact of planetary erosion. Everything from industrial waste to human waste being transported off planet is elements of the periodic table being removed from what was a closed system.
Again, scale comes into play: it would take a long time and tremendous amount getting off world, but I think writing off any potential exploitation of resources to the point of exhaustion should be taken seriously. Just ask the world's fresh water supply...
Edit: This is also why I think mining asteroids should be higher on our list than settling Mars. Not to mention spinning up a NEO industry would make planetary travel a lot easier.
Decronym t1_isnbngw wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |NEO|Near-Earth Object| |RTLS|Return to Launch Site|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
^(4 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 17 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8155 for this sub, first seen 17th Oct 2022, 07:15])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
SunStockMan t1_isnj4ty wrote
Relatively your wrong as well - so sad that you think by altering the verbiage that you will somehow be correct. You believe too much of the bullshit talking points instead looking at the facts .... However, if you choose to believe that the moon is made of cheese, so be it. BTW, SpongeBob is a cartoon, he is not real
SunStockMan t1_isnjaxr wrote
SO the 1,183 pounds in a Tesla is creating less waste??? Stupidity has no bounds. Keep following your leaders fake talking points ... lol
Tomycj t1_isocsr0 wrote
yes, because a tesla does not necessarily consume hundreds of barrels of oil during its lifetime.
Tomycj t1_isod4ju wrote
Not a single counter argument given. Just "nah your wrong".
We produce less waste per loaf of bread made, per book fabricated, per pipe installed. It's just that we make more bread, more books, more pipes.
It's not that hard to understand lol.
Tomycj t1_isoeran wrote
>SpaceX is the transport company. Starlink is going to get spun off/cashed out if it ever gets profitable.
Is that supposed to counter my point? Transport companies make profit too.
Elon has said that, yes, but he's also willing to spend HIS money if necessary. We'll have to see how the market reacts once the railroad (Starship) is built. You're claiming it will obviously fail, I disagree, we'll see.
>that's never really been clearly stated
yes, it was very clearly stated: Elon has clearly stated that they'll use starlink revenue to fund spacex's objectives (which is enabling the colonization of mars).
>So the implication is that some govt at some point is going to pony up the trillions of dollars in perpetuity
The government is not the only entity which can pay for stuff, other than spacex. There's a whole market out there. Again, we'll see how the market reacts once taking 100 tons to the surface of mars costs $50M. And spacex, so far, is well on its way to that.
SunStockMan t1_isof9tf wrote
Are you ok? We are talking about waste. Stick with the topic. Don't deflect somewhere else because you realize your argument is WRONG. get a grip. Take a deep breath. Oh, and read before you make ridiculous, unsubstantiated statements.
Tomycj t1_isogezv wrote
Fuel production produces waste. Fuel consumption produces CO2. Is now my statement substantiated enough for you? lol
WaterCluster t1_isojovx wrote
Elon Musk isn’t the only person who wants to go to Mars. Expanding to new places is probably a human universal.
SunStockMan t1_isoq4sn wrote
So you are agreeing with me that you are wrong ..... are you ok? Seriously, have you mixed medications? Maybe id you lie down it will help.
SunStockMan t1_isoqedn wrote
Have you been mixing your medications? Enjoy the life hat you have fabricated inside your head
simcoder t1_ispds3y wrote
>Elon has clearly stated that they'll use starlink revenue to fund spacex's objectives (which is enabling the colonization of mars).
I think maybe you need to check with Elon on that. Elon himself has stated that Starlink will be sold off when it gets profitable.
And even if they did pump all the profit from Starlink into Mars, it would still just be a drop in the bucket.
Where Elon has very intentionally confused his biggest fanbase on the Starlink Mars connection comes from a Shotwell quote:
Shotwell said: "The total addressable market for launch, with a conservative outlook on commercial human passengers, is probably about $6 billion," she said, "but the addressable market for global broadband is $1 trillion."
She added: "If you want to help fund long-term Mars development programs, you want to go into markets and sectors that are much bigger than the one you're in, especially if there's enough connective tissue between that giant market, and what you're doing now. That's how I recall it, but that's a good question for Elon."
Tomycj t1_ispxc4v wrote
Elon just said it would eventually become a public company, I don't think that implies he will lose all involvement in it.
> it would still just be a drop in the bucket.
No, it would be a HUGE boost to the Starship program. And as I said before, once that is working, the market might come in and help a lot with the rest. It's like building a railroad: its cost is small compared to the rest of the town, but that whole town might not have developed without it.
Shotwell's quote is in-line with what I've been telling you. I don't know why you make it look as if that were some sort of intentional misinformation or something.
simcoder t1_ispyox5 wrote
It does imply a whole new set of investors and board of directors to keep happy. People usually invest in things to make money. They can't make money if all of it is getting siphoned off to pay for a Mars colony.
If the Starlink profits really were destined to go to Mars, it would be much simpler to just keep it in house at SpaceX.
Shotwell's quote is supposed to confuse you. But note that even she is unaware of the specifics of how the Mars financing is going to work. Hence her "that's a good question for Elon".
And it's a question that Elon has ducked for almost a decade now.
Tomycj t1_isq2739 wrote
Elon simply said, paraphrasing, "I want to use starlink to help funding the colonization of mars, and that is at least part of the reason I started starlink". That's clear enough for me. I don't know the specifics but it is not something impossible to do, so I'm not that worried.
If you want to check if there's more info on how Elon's planning to do it, r/spacex is a good source, try asking there.
Anyways, with starlink help or not, fortunately the starship program seems to be well funded for now. After all its a revolutionary rocket, mars bound or not.
simcoder t1_isq39ha wrote
Most of the fanbase, regardless of sub, are convinced that somehow Starlink is going to pay for Mars. And Elon really hasn't laid out any specifics. The fact that he has been very, very specific about IPOing Starlink though should be a cautionary warning to anyone under the impression Starlink will pay for Mars.
And the launch market isn't really that big and doesn't really need a Starship (see Shotwell's comment). To some extent, Starlink is a make work project to give Starship something to do.
So, doubtful that's going to be a huge revenue source either.
Tomycj t1_isq5njr wrote
I suggested r/spacex precisely because they're very rigorous, so there's little "fanbase bias", if you're looking for serious and informed arguments.
>Starlink is a make work project to give Starship something to do.
Well, if that means getting involved in a trillion dollar business, it looks like a very good use for the starship.
Shotwell was talking about human travel. The non-human space market is much bigger. And she was talking about the present. In the future, with such a railway built and working, things might change a lot.
simcoder t1_isq7bgy wrote
I think the problem is that we really only have those couple quotes to go on and then everything else is just guesswork/fill in the blanks. Regardless of the sub you are in.
Regarding Starship revolutionizing space. The A380 was going to revolutionize air travel. But it turns out that bigger is not always better. Sometimes the flexibility you get from smaller is more important. I think that applies even more to space/LEO.
Tomycj t1_isq8c99 wrote
Starship is not only bigger, but cheaper. It's RTLS capabilities make it very flexible in some aspects aswell.
edit: well it isn't, it's intended to be. We have yet to see it, but so far the numbers make sense.
simcoder t1_isq8nib wrote
Well so was the A380 on a per passenger basis. But turns out there are a very limited number of routes with enough passengers to justify the sizing.
Pretty much the exact same can be said for space/LEO whether you're talking about cargo or pax.
Tomycj t1_isqcy69 wrote
No, the same can't be said about Starship because it is intended to be cheaper than the falcon 9, and we already know that the falcon 9 has enough "routes". It's as if that big plane could also fly the common routes for a cheaper price. That's why Starship is so revolutionary.
[deleted] t1_isqfwwe wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_isjyne9 wrote
[removed]