"It would be cost-prohibitive not to litter"
If one can't do business without carelessly leveraging finite public resources I would argue that that business is untenable
If one can't do business without carelessly leveraging finite public resources I would argue that that business is untenable
I know, I know, the above is close to hopelessly optimistic. It's like when I was younger: I remember thinking, "I'm not going to smoke cigarettes, but if I did it would probably be okay. By the time it would really matter, medicine will have surely found cures." I was an idiot, though I never did smoke.
Public resources are always consumed while public exists. We should thrive to always experiment, learn from it and evolve/do better.
When we're talking about satellites in graveyard orbits, no humans can see it, there's no wildlife, or really any environment to damage. None of the concerns we have with litter apply. Trying to speak against it as if it's litter is then either an attempt to shoehorn a concept into a place where it doesn't apply to make a snap judgement, or a malicious attempt to attach something for other reasons. No comment on which is going on here, but if you're going to convince anybody not to enjoy the many benefits of geostationary satellites, you're going to need to make a better case than likening it to "litter".