I once saw an arty French film. 6 hours, edited down from the original 18...

Come on, even The Beatles weren't the best Beatles-type band - that was the Rutles.

I once got stopped for the Pepsi challenge. I successfully identified the Pepsi but they didn't use the footage as I said I could tell as the Coca Cola tasted better.

Currently, it's still within the bounds predicted by models and given the emissions profile, even more so.

We've been in a continuous ice age for 34 million years. You are confusing glacial maximums and ice ages. But no, the Earth is not recovering from that either and was in a cooling period for 8000 years until very recently (some argue 2000 years of stability and 6000 years of cooling) and in terms or orbital tilt, wobble, etc., should still be in one. It's was a very, very gentle period of cooling.

No more than Star Trek communicators are prior art for your smart phone.

How? No good music has been released since the Beatles split up!

P.S. That having been said, if it led to an increase in ice (it might just stop the decline) it might chance albedo and mitigate overall global warming. It's unlikely that it would be sufficient on its own to stop or reverse global warming, though.

Colder, regionally that is. The earth as a whole will be warmer, especially places like Florida.

Yes, potentially. The effects of global warming on AMOC and the consequences have been explored in the scientific literature since the 1970s.

Because people just love being inside all the time.

Population increase is not necessarily needed for economic growth. Indeed, in Western countries it has tended to outstrip population growth for a long time. Automation means that people are not necessarily needed for the older population so much.

Show your working, then.

Kessler limit is considered to be 100,000. Current number of satellites is about 14,500, an order of magnitude lower.

Massively smaller than what is being proposed, so not relevant.

Starlink volume is too small to be meaningful, so not likely to be comparable, even in aggregate.

I think you are confusing expansion with maintenance as it's 2,300 to do both at present. But if it was 2000 to maintain levels that would mean 200,000 a year to maintain a million So that's TWO orders of magnitude greater. Is that viable? Bear in mind each launch also (each has several satellites) contributes to climate change. None of this is looking, on the face of it, very sustainable.

The issue is comparison costs, not total cost. A billion a year business doesn't stay that way by finding the most expensive way to do things. So I'd want to see a full breakdown of the costs.

You are limited to radiation. Whilst the temperature differential is great, conduction and removal by a working fluid can remove a very large amount of heat. This is why, say, at a blacksmith's a redhot item, which will be reliant on radiative and convection will take so much longer to cool down than quenching in water. Or why (using another example), cooling a machine gun with water allows greater sustained fire unless a very heavy barrel is used, and even then when it gets hot, air-cooling is insufficient. And the difference between a working piece in a blacksmiths at 500C is greater differential from the ambient (15C) than you are likely to get between the radiative elements in space compared to the surroundings (~3K). As such, you need to ensure sufficient cooling vanes or other devices, or take away heat internally with a working fluid and additionally increase its temperature (e.g., compress, and then expand later) to enhance the temperature differential. This takes mass which you have to also launch. Sure, it is possible to put a million satellites up there, but is it actually cost effective, especially given the rate of reduction in cost of renewables and batteries?

Is the ISS a small satellite? Is the proposal for 1million ISS? Seems unlikely. If so, then why compare to the ISS?

People seem to be concerned about minerals for EVs yet seem to be unconcerned about having them deposited into the upper atmosphere where there is even less chance of recovery for reuse.

Maybe I need to delve more into the math but I think common sense suggests that improving power generation on earth is likely to be rather easier and more cost effective, and that cost, with renewables at least, is reducing rapidly. And maybe the other effort could be on improving efficiency of the models and code surrounding them - a 1% improvement would mean many fewer powerplants required worldwide.

Increased launch mass by a significant degree.

There seems to be considerable dispute about the math, so like I said, citation required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Without very active management, 1 million is itself an order of magnitude greater than the presumed Kessler limit. Other countries may also wish to launch many satellites for AI or other reasons. Thus it may well be an issue. We cannot blindly assume it won't be without details of mitigations.

What is the lifecycle given the AI tech in the satellites?

Who knows. At current launch costs, what makes you think we care?

I am not sure devil-may-care is a great idea with respect to LEO.

I am talking about lifecycle management. Cheap in the context of satellites is not actually very cheap, though, if you are bringing that up.

Kessler. Not station keeping and debris is an issue.

And the comparison is what?

Ditto with solar and batteries.

Citation required.