this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
776 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
70041 readers
25 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
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
Should the fine not be the cost of a mission to move the satellite? It's within our technology now.
That would make sense - the fine should be enough to pay for the satellite's disposal.
Over and over we've seen companies not be held responsible for the cleanup of their projects. A lot of parallels to the fossil fuel industry, where they often abandon their wells with little recourse for the people left to clean up the pieces.
That would negatively impact future campaign contributions.
This is the real answer. This is both doing something and nothing at the same time. Pandering to both sides.
Article says the fine is for not moving the satellite far enough away from things still being used. Maybe all they have to do is send it a command to move itself further
The article says it ran out of fuel
Oh rip, I missed that