Submitted by ye_olde_astronaut t3_11ie69j in space
Comments
asphytotalxtc t1_jaxrhul wrote
Nations throwing fucking crap in the skies for the last half a century without a care, one company comes along and does it better with a good disposal plan and they're the bad ones ..
elegance78 t1_jaxsun0 wrote
That's the beauty of China putting up their constellation - they won't give a flying fuck about your pearl clutching.
simcoder t1_jaxtra0 wrote
And that's a good thing?
elegance78 t1_jaxuisb wrote
Yes. Puts the incessant whining about SpaceX into perspective.
Pigs_in_the_Porridge t1_jaxuk4x wrote
So many Elon lickers on reddit. It's disgusting.
Pigs_in_the_Porridge t1_jaxum47 wrote
Yes they have ruined astronomy better than any country ever has.
BackItUpWithLinks t1_jaxussu wrote
Have we hit today’s quota for fear-mongering crap posts about starlink yet?
[deleted] t1_jaxuu7z wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jaxv3fp wrote
[removed]
simcoder t1_jaxv6co wrote
What if China follows through and launches a bunch of Starlink shadow kill bots up there because they can? Is SpaceX allowed to whine?
South_Barnacle_9760 t1_jaxv7ut wrote
weird to assume i’m whining about space x when i’m simply concerned about protecting dark skies but go on.
elegance78 t1_jaxvf8e wrote
I am talking about their own low orbit comsats.
ForceUser128 t1_jaxvura wrote
Ironically enough, starlink is doing the most out of any satalite company to minimise and eventually eliminate their impact of naked eye, amature, and ground based observatory astronomy.
Stating facts is not being an Elon licker buuuut somehow I dont think that makes a difference to you :D
MyDudeNak t1_jaxvuws wrote
Human advancement requires sacrifices. Professional astronomy will be fine, and it's hard for me to care that a hobbyist will not be able to image a particular galaxy quite as easy.
[deleted] t1_jaxvx1x wrote
[deleted] t1_jaxw2ew wrote
[removed]
ForceUser128 t1_jaxwxgy wrote
Starlink isndoing more than any other sat company to date regarding protecting dark skies https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-signs-agreement-to-prevent-starlink-from-interfering-with-astronomy#:~:text=The%20Starlink%20network%20currently%20includes,minimizing%20Starlink's%20impact%20on%20astronomy.
ForceUser128 t1_jaxx1ry wrote
Starlink has done more to protect dark skies than any other sat company to date https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-signs-agreement-to-prevent-starlink-from-interfering-with-astronomy#:~:text=The%20Starlink%20network%20currently%20includes,minimizing%20Starlink's%20impact%20on%20astronomy.
Course_Ball_Hare_4U t1_jaxxkz5 wrote
And yet because of them I can read complaints on Reddit.
alexanderpas t1_jaxy593 wrote
> Professional astronomy will be fine
Uhmm...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-01903-3
> [...] Observations affected by artificial satellites can become unusable for scientific research [...] SpaceX has been launching Starlink satellites [...] bright satellites could mess up their view of the cosmos by leaving streaks on telescope images as they glide past [...] Even the Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits more than 500 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, is vulnerable to these satellite streaks, as well as those from other satellite constellations.[..] we scanned the archive of Hubble Space Telescope images taken between 2002 and 2021. We find that [..] of 2.7% of the individual exposures with a typical exposure time of 11 minutes are crossed by satellites and that [...] increases with time. [...] With the growing number of artificial satellites currently planned, [...] Hubble Space Telescope images crossed by satellites will increase in the next decade
You can't get more professional than a telescope in actual space.
Law_Student t1_jaxy6bt wrote
That's like saying that X cigarette company has done more to reduce the chance of lung cancer than any other. You're kind of missing the fundamental issue that huge satellite constellations are bad for all ground-based astronomy. The best thing for astronomy would be not to have an enormous number of satellites in low orbit.
Sunflower_After_Dark t1_jaxyp7a wrote
The first time Elon tried to extort the US over Ukraine, we should’ve cut him off. We indeed have a problem, too much power in a lunatic’s hands.
Adeldor t1_jaxzcb9 wrote
Hubble's orbit has decayed over time. If proposals to reboost it come to pass (by SpaceX, no less), the problem will be ameliorated. If not, the telescope's near end of life anyway.
Meanwhile, future spaceborne telescopes are destined increasingly for far orbits (eg L2) to avoid the biggest photobomber of all - the Earth itself. In LEO it obscures nearly half the sky, limiting greatly what can be observed when - especially for long duration exposures. Far orbits bypass both that and satellite constellations.
[deleted] t1_jaxzj4s wrote
ForceUser128 t1_jaxzkwg wrote
Fuck advancement and people in rural areas with poor to no access to internet. Also 3rd world countries with poor infrastructure, fuck all of them. Also, Ukrainian civilians can rot and die with no internet access, and lol, who needs to know about Iranian atrocities.
Comparing the good starlink has done, is doing, and will do for humanity to cigarettes is one of the most moronic analogies I've heard so far, but the day is young and the haters many.
PEVEI t1_jaxzxaa wrote
...Because that one company accounts for half of all active satellites?
tanrgith t1_jay03ea wrote
Says the person who started whining about "Elon shills" when the thread had like 5 comments
PEVEI t1_jay03tx wrote
It's really just a few, but they have a lot of bots.
BackItUpWithLinks t1_jay076k wrote
Musk is shitty because Ukrainians agreed not to use it for offensive weapons and then used it for offensive weapons?
> “It was never intended to be weaponized, but the Ukrainians have leveraged it in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement,” SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said
I won’t be surprised if the next post complains that Musk is complicit in murders because starlink is being used for offensive weapons 🤦🏻♂️
Adeldor t1_jay1f1t wrote
No, he did not cut off service. Starlink provided service and hardware free of charge after the Ukrainian vice prime minister's plea for help. No one realized the war would drag on for as long as it has, and after a while Musk wanted the US to pay for future service, just like Raytheon et al are being paid.
Meanwhile, the service continues uninterrupted, with the quoted Ukrainian minister saying Musk is "one of the biggest private donors of our future victory."
[deleted] t1_jay21sz wrote
Cutecumber_Roll t1_jay27ds wrote
Space based astronomy is the future. The best thing for astronomy would be cheap launches and a permanent moon settlement.
[deleted] t1_jay3474 wrote
[removed]
crazytown69 t1_jay3p2k wrote
It’s easier to just not engage on these posts. It’s all Elon hate bs they don’t care about astronomy. I’ve asked several astronomers and not one has complained. There will be thousands of these articles and it won’t change a thing. It’s sad that politics got involved but that’s the world we live in now. Even the green movement that was loving Elon has turned on him even though he sells more EV’s than all the others combined. Haters gonna hate and paid haters gonna hate even more.
[deleted] t1_jay3skm wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jay45ha wrote
[removed]
BeerPoweredNonsense t1_jay4bff wrote
>active satellites
The main issues with "too much shit in orbit" are, I believe: 1. Risk of Kessler Syndrome 2. Impact on astronomy.
In both the above, a dead satellite is as much of a risk as an active satellite. More so in fact - an active satellite can be ordered to dodge an imminent collision.
The US are tracking IIRC 13,000 objects in orbit. To focus only on active satellites is unscientific.
Pigs_in_the_Porridge t1_jay4qe6 wrote
Starlink caused the problem. They should absolutely pay to fix it. Starlink will also deposit tons of aluminum and other metals in the atmosphere, which I'm sure will be awesome for the biosphere.
simcoder t1_jay4u4v wrote
I think they may have nailed one of the problems right on the head.
A couple excerpts:
“Starlink is the densest patch of space that has ever existed,” Lawler says. The satellites are constantly navigating out of each other’s way to avoid collisions (SN: 2/12/09). And it’s a popular orbital altitude — Hubble is there, and so is the International Space Station and the Chinese space station.
So far, there are no international regulations to curb the number of satellites a private company can launch or to limit which orbits they can occupy.
“The speed of commercial development is much faster than the speed of regulation change,” McDowell says. “There needs to be an overhaul of space traffic management and space regulation generally to cope with these massive commercial projects.”
Pigs_in_the_Porridge t1_jay512g wrote
By "human advancement" you mean "enriching Elon Musk."
[deleted] t1_jay52sv wrote
[removed]
PEVEI t1_jay58f4 wrote
Virtually no one on this sub I've met understands Kessler Syndrome, nor do they understand why it isn't a meaningful issue for the sort of orbits we're talking about. Impact on astronomy is a big issue, although it appears that for interesting reasons, many here are unmoved by that.
I would add that the "13,000 objects in orbit" is both a lowball (the estimate from NASA is well over 20k) and not referring mostly to inactive satellites. In fact that number refers to anything 10cm and over, and the majority is junk. The number of inactive sats is much lower, a fraction of that number, about 7500 according to the article we're responding to above. SpaceX accounts for half of that number.
As far as dead sats, they're in a different stat which includes spent rocket stages, and that number is about 3000. There are in fact more SpaceX sats in LEO than dead sats and rocket stages from all other sources in history.
With more launched every year.
Edit: Virtually none of that space junk making up the 25K+ number is visible to the naked eye, nor does it have a material impact on Earth-based astronomy.
[deleted] t1_jay5dax wrote
[removed]
simcoder t1_jay67su wrote
> Kessler Syndrome
Debris cascades are a very real issue though.
barncat09 t1_jay7a9g wrote
Need a giant magnet! Get rid of all of them! Ahh simpler times. 😆
ClearlyCylindrical t1_jay7enc wrote
Musk was providing a tool of war for free. Why should a private company be expected to provide such a service?
[deleted] t1_jay7xyo wrote
Elon-Musk-Officiall t1_jay8ju1 wrote
It seems clear to me what kessler syndrome is and how it applies, from about 5 minutes of reading. Its a cascade that will cause material to spray into different orbits and at different speeds depending on mass. Thank you for the slight.
DBDude t1_jay91ky wrote
SpaceX has already saved the government far more more money than it spent.
[deleted] t1_jay98tq wrote
DBDude t1_jay9b4g wrote
Every other company was getting paid in full to provide its products and services to Ukraine. You think Raytheon was giving away Javelins for free? What’s wrong with SpaceX wanting some payment for continuing operations too?
Sunflower_After_Dark t1_jay9si8 wrote
Nothing wrong with good business. But, Elon tried to extort Ukraine, a US ally, by threatening to disable the satellites unless we gave him more. He did come to his senses on that one. But, again he threatened to disable drone use for Ukraine, because he has a interest in selling Starlink to Putin. He’s a loose cannon.
[deleted] t1_jay9std wrote
JohnathonLongbottom t1_jaya11b wrote
I've had people tell me that Kessler syndrome is a non issue and will never happen. Hilarious the hubris of some people
PEVEI t1_jaya2sl wrote
It's real, but incredibly overblown in the popular imagination, especially for LEO.
https://aquarid.physics.uwo.ca/kessler/Kessler%20Syndrome-AAS%20Paper.pdf
The reality is that it's going to be a source of debris going forward, but it's incredibly unlikely to become the sci-fi nightmare people mean when they refer to it. In reality it's just another added cost of doing business, barring some sort of extreme event such a war in orbit, or suicidal nuclear strikes.
simcoder t1_jayapsk wrote
A XX,000 satellite constellation going full debris cascade is going to leave a mark on LEO for quite a while. And that debris will have to traverse the orbits of the space stations and Hubble and who knows what else as it deorbits.
It's pretty common for the SpaceX superfan to completely disregard the impacts of such a thing. I'm not sure how they do it but they seem to be able to filter out any and all bad outcomes when their favorite corporation is involved.
I guess it's their super power.
Jakebsorensen t1_jayb09h wrote
By “human advancement” he means stable internet connections across the globe
[deleted] t1_jayb6gm wrote
[removed]
pxr555 t1_jaydxjw wrote
SpaceX doesn't get any government funding. They have contracts to deliver services and they deliver them more reliable and cheaper than others. Don't let your irrational hate for Elon Musk get the better of you.
PEVEI t1_jayebsj wrote
On what planet can Starlink service such a large customer base with a reasonable amount of throughput per user?
Llanite t1_jayez0j wrote
He's such a shitty person for trying to get compensated for his work.
Reddit peak.
[deleted] t1_jayh088 wrote
[deleted] t1_jayh1hd wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_jayik44 wrote
[removed]
PianoMan2112 t1_jayjmpd wrote
“Space … is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is.”
Decronym t1_jayk33q wrote
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |ASAT|Anti-Satellite weapon| |ITAR|(US) International Traffic in Arms Regulations| |L2|Lagrange Point 2 (Sixty Symbols video explanation)| | |Paywalled section of the NasaSpaceFlight forum| |LEO|Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km)| | |Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations)| |SN|(Raptor/Starship) Serial Number| |SRB|Solid Rocket Booster|
|Jargon|Definition| |-------|---------|---| |Raptor|Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX| |Starlink|SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation|
^(7 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 29 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8649 for this sub, first seen 5th Mar 2023, 01:41])
^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])
DBDude t1_jaykedb wrote
SpaceX wanted to get paid like everyone else. About the drones, they were exported with license for general communications. SpaceX did not have ITAR permission to export weapons systems. Dual-use technology can be legally dangerous. So Shotwell said to stop doing that.
FlingingGoronGonads t1_jayo0xt wrote
I commend you for trying, but I'm pretty sure you're never going to get through to people stuck in the Musk personality cult. A person who unironically says things like
> Human advancement requires sacrifices
after all the environmental degradation we've seen in the last 200 years of industrialization, and 50 years after "Tragedy of the Commons" was first published, can probably never be made whole. As for the callous and inhuman attitudes you find with Starlink fanatics, this is what I think of when they talk about what they call "human advancement".
Never before has a new industry worked so hard to destroy the very science that birthed it.
xylopyrography t1_jayo1zt wrote
99% of the risk is in higher altitude satellites and in non-active satellites and other debris.
Starlink could cause a lot of problems for 10 years and some problems for 50 years, but wouldn't disrupt space access on the long term.
[deleted] t1_jayp1ma wrote
[removed]
spacerfirstclass t1_jayq0rd wrote
> “These big low-orbit internet constellations have come from nowhere in 2019, to dominating the space environment in 2023,” says McDowell
It didn't come from nowhere though, Elon Musk unveiled the constellation that would eventually become Starlink Gen1 on Jan 2015, so it took them 8 years to get to where they're today. It's just in the first 4 years they didn't launch anything since they had to finish the design and the production line, also mature Falcon 9 reusability, in order to put them into a position to launch these satellites quickly.
> Even the Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits more than 500 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, is vulnerable to these satellite streaks, as well as those from other satellite constellations.
The article neglect to mention that this is because Hubble's orbit has decayed because it's no longer being regularly boosted by Shuttle, now it's below the main shell of Starlink which caused the problem. SpaceX and NASA is already looking at plans to reboost Hubble using Crew Dragon which would solve this problem.
> “Starlink is the densest patch of space that has ever existed,” Lawler says. The satellites are constantly navigating out of each other’s way to avoid collisions
This is incorrect, while in operational orbit Starlink satellites are positioned in such a way so that they avoid each other naturally, no active collision avoidance is necessary. The only time they need to do active collision avoidance is when they encounter space debris, dead satellites, or satellites without propulsion ability.
> “If there is some kind of collision [between Starlinks], some kind of mishap, it could immediately affect human lives,” Lawler says.
This is overly dramatic, Russia blew up a satellite between ISS orbit and Starlink orbit, it didn't hurt anybody in orbit or on the ground, nor did it degrade any space based services such as GPS. It did create a lot of work for people who's job is to steering satellites and space station around debris. So yes in a way it did affect human lives in that it caused tons of overtime and postponed vacations, but that's about it.
how_tall_is_imhotep t1_jayq0rq wrote
> Starlink will also deposit tons of aluminum and other metals in the atmosphere
This is a perfect example of a complete failure of perspective. About 1 million kg of meteors burn up around the world every day. So what made you conclude that Starlink satellites burning up would cause a significant increase in the amount of metals in the atmosphere? Nothing at all. You're willing to say anything as long as it's anti-Elon.
Law_Student t1_jayraa3 wrote
"Paid haters"? You sound nuts, dude.
Sunflower_After_Dark t1_jayumbc wrote
Oh so Ukraine has to play by the rules and Russia doesn’t? That seems a little naive.
simcoder t1_jayuv88 wrote
The graph of the number of conjunctions involving Starlink is somewhat concerning. And the spike in conjunctions resulting from that Russian ASAT "test" shows just how quickly things can get out of hand.
https://twitter.com/ProfHughLewis/status/1506670025528250379?s=20
SpearPointTech t1_jaywess wrote
So are they SpaceX's satellites or did SpaceX just help them get up there?
seanflyon t1_jaz0nsn wrote
They are SpaceX Starlink satellites.
[deleted] t1_jaz2o9a wrote
[removed]
DBDude t1_jaz3ep4 wrote
SpaceX has to play by the rules.
RavenchildishGambino t1_jaz7ygi wrote
A LEO satellite is less risky for Kessler. All debris should deorbit in 10 years or less.
RavenchildishGambino t1_jaz83hc wrote
Not in LEO. Because atmosphere and gravity exist.
RavenchildishGambino t1_jaz8b1z wrote
SpaceX is the single largest operator of satellites
ForceUser128 t1_jaz8qps wrote
The majority of aluminum being deposited is from solid rocket boosters that they do not use. The few tons that might end up from sats burning up is not the same dangerous kind that's released by SRBs and millions of tons, vs a few tons, gets released daily (again not the SRB kind) by asteroids.
This is a good example of haters twisting the truth, desperately looking for absolitely any crumbs of reason to hate while ignoring the good that is done, like supporting the civilians in Ukraine that lost access to basic communiction (not internet, just basic telephone) that you entitled rich brats takes for granted.
Hate filled and entitled af. I dont hate people like you, I just feel sadness and pity.
simcoder t1_jaz8r2i wrote
Sure they are.
Put enough stuff up there and eventually you'll get a cascade. Spread that out amongst various operators, both friendly and unfriendly, and you won't even need as much stuff to get to that point.
RavenchildishGambino t1_jaz9vj8 wrote
Yes. And how long will this cascade last?
5-10 years?
Chip in some maths here to prove your point.
A Starlink satellite should naturally fall out of the sky in 5ish years.
simcoder t1_jazcq1a wrote
Both space stations and Hubble are in the debris path to deorbit. As are a lot of other things that people would prefer not get shredded or have to burn all their fuel dodging broken dreams.
So, a lot can happen in 5 or 10 years. Or however long it takes for the full evolution to occur. And the geopolitical ramifications could cause all sorts of strife here on the ground above and beyond the collateral damage in orbit.
To dismiss the potential consequences of a worst case scenario would be very, very foolish.
BeerPoweredNonsense t1_jazqav9 wrote
No one's dismissing it - in particular, the US authorities forced several adaptations to Starlink in order to reduce the risks of mega-constellations e.g. insisting that satellites fully burn-up on re-entry in order to minimise risks to the v1.0 humans on the ground.
It is normal to be wary, and to insist on proceeding with caution. However many of the anti-Starlink posters are just hiding their hate-boner for Elon under a pseudo-scientific veneer. E.g. mention Starlink on Reddit and you're guaranteed "Kessler Syndrome!" and "Astronomy!" replies. But posts about the other mega-constellations currently in deployment do not seem to attract the same "science-based concern" :shrugs:
[deleted] t1_jb0001w wrote
[removed]
quantyd t1_jb08kly wrote
I have no problem with Starlink. The potential for spreading education all around the world is enormous. As well as the potential for spreading ideas of equality.. Can you imagine being in Sudan and having the world opened up to you? The potential for revolutionary change is there. Hubble can go blow me a big bubble.
RavenchildishGambino t1_jb0wbhh wrote
The answer is to not do anything and progress.
The first time the USA made a nuclear reactor they almost melted it down.
The first time they set of a nuclear bomb they weren’t 100% sure they wouldn’t light the atmosphere on fire.
The ISS is old and near end of life.
Hubble is beyond its End of Mission date, though still useful.
5-10 years of no progress would be unfortunate, but there was more than 10 years of America unable to launch their astronauts to space. It’s not that long.
That’s why these things should be tried, but tried in LEO, where the mess will clean itself up within a generation.
Space is huge, and while I think Elon is a turd burger of a human, having 100,000 large-ish objects up in the sky (which is a huge place) can be handled with our current level of technology.
cubes158 t1_jb0ypau wrote
You're using facts, logic, reasoning, and law to argue points with people who believe in none of those things.
simcoder t1_jb16mkh wrote
Hmmm. Well I think you might need to do a better job convincing the Chinese that potentially sacrificing their station is just a necessary step down the road of progress.
I don't think they are going to buy your theory.
simcoder t1_jb178i8 wrote
>No one's dismissing it
Yes...they are.
In fact the other guy just said that whatever collateral damage happens is just the sad wreckage we'll need to leave in our wake to move up the technological ladder.
It's pretty scary to be honest. All the things that the SpaceX fanbase is willing to sacrifice to achieve Elon's goals.
TbonerT t1_jb21siu wrote
No. SpaceX goes to great lengths to minimize visibility of its satellites. I’ve tried several times to spot one and have l not succeeded in the last couple of years.
they_have_no_bullets t1_jb2twpz wrote
And yet provides more than 50% of the value of all the other satellites by actually providing a sweet high speed internet service. Hard for me to hate on it when it's literally the only way I can be online
RavenchildishGambino t1_jb3lpyy wrote
I’m not going to convince the Chinese of anything.
They literally don’t care. They don’t even make sure their Long March boosters won’t deorbit and hit land in a populated area.
Since they show they don’t care, why would your argument about the Chinese be something I take even remotely seriously?
Hey China!
I DONT GIVE AN EFF ABOUT YOUR STATION. LEARN TO CONTROL YOUR BOOSTERS BEFORE WE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/04/world/china-rocket-booster-long-march-reentry-scn/index.html
Also, let’s talk about human rights when you have a moment.
simcoder t1_jb3r7v1 wrote
I guess the point is that, regardless of whether you give a shit or not about collateral damage, the world likely will give a shit.
Mega-constellation debris cascades are a serious concern and shouldn't be dismissed. To do so would be extremely naive and/or foolish.
RavenchildishGambino t1_jb3rhuw wrote
Yeah. LEO orbit is huge. We’ll be good. Cheer up.
simcoder t1_jb3s341 wrote
I'm just saying that to blithely disregard the risks involved with these things is kind of foolish.
RavenchildishGambino t1_jb3s8f8 wrote
These folks are highly educated engineers and professionals. The only person taking it lightly is you, and your hyperbole.
I’m not buying it.
Go rant somewhere else please.
Have a great day, but kindly move on with this fear mongering.
This conversation is foolish.
simcoder t1_jb3sen9 wrote
NASA had to remind SpaceX that the risk of a collision isn't zero. So.....
RavenchildishGambino t1_jb3stmp wrote
I said good day, redditor. Good day.
simcoder t1_jb3sxp4 wrote
[deleted] t1_jb5hx0k wrote
[removed]
SpearPointTech t1_jb7ys5c wrote
Geez people, it was a legitimate question.
South_Barnacle_9760 t1_jaxr3cx wrote
can it be surmised that these 100,000+ satellites will contribute to eliminating dark skies everywhere? that’s a scary thought.
edit: i was unaware this was one of those divisive hot topics. excuse my naïveté.