• echo64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    You might have a point if launching rockets was cheaper, but launching infinite rockets forever is not cheaper. The rockets fall out of the sky. So we’re talking about one upfront cost or a cost forever.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      We’ll likely have much better technology in the future and the problem will more or less solve itself. In this day and age satellite internet simply just is the most sensible option and probably cheaper aswell. The amount of diesel machinery you’d need to dig all that cable in the rural USA alone would be mind boggling not to mention the enviromental damage of all that digging. These cables don’t last forever either. They too need maintenance and eventually to be dug up and replaced.

      Rocket is just the delivery vehicle for the satellites. It’s not supposed to stay in orbit itself. Building the rocket is what has made space flight so expensive in the past because they were single-use but now with reusable rockets the cost is much less of an issue. They run with renewable fuel aswell - oxygen and methane.

      Space travel is going to be getting much more common in the future and the number of rocket launches is only going to increase either way.

      • echo64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Shockingly, you don’t need to dig. And handwaving away the cost, including the environmental cost of infinite rocket launches forever because “oh magical technology will save us some day” does not help your case.