You must log in or register to comment.

kosmos1209 t1_j5mabis wrote

Elon overselling things?!?! Shocker, I tell you, a shocker!


SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j5migft wrote

Settle down. Just tell your fully self driving Tesla, that was made by a privately-owned company, to drive you to the nearest Hyperloop while writing a tweet mocking Elon, which is perfectly allowed on Twitter now.


bitcoins t1_j5nf9hd wrote

Something something embedded brain chips, grimes, and solar roofs


gerkletoss t1_j5nfkqv wrote

What does this have to do with overselling?


kosmos1209 t1_j5nl6vh wrote

From the article:

“Simply put, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but never fully eliminated.”


Charming_Ad_4 t1_j5oao6u wrote

When exactly Musk claimed such a thing?


Charming_Ad_4 t1_j5oiolo wrote

Quotes to what Musk said:

""Musk wrote on Twitter today (May 27) that he's already instructed teams to look into making future Starlink internet communications satellites less shiny to lower their "albedo," or reflectivity. He pointed that out in response to a direct call from a com menter on Twitter. ""

"Exactly, potentially helping billions of economically disadvantaged people is the greater good," Musk wrote in response to a comment on the service Starlink's constellation would provide. "That said, we'll make sure Starlink has no material effect on discoveries in astronomy. We care a great deal about science."

“I am confident that we will not cause any effect whatsoever in astronomical discoveries,” Musk said. “Zero. That’s my prediction. We’ll take corrective action if it’s above zero.”

Musk went on to add that SpaceX was “running a bunch of experiments to paint the phased array antenna black instead of white,” a possible reference to the so-called “darkened satellite” launched by the company earlier this year.

He also noted the company was working on a “sunshade” for the satellites, adding: “There are certain angles where you can get a reflection.

“We’re launching a sunshade, changing the color of the satellite… aesthetically this should not be an impact.”

From 2019.

Proves my point, that

A. The article is misinformation.

B. Musk said they'll make sure to not mess with astronomy, doing a variety of measures on the sats. He never claimed that such effects as light pollution wouldn't happen in the first place.


not_creative1 t1_j5npzj5 wrote

Have to choose between a few researches inconvenienced on earth, who are using ground based telescopes while there are super high quality telescopes in space already, which are much better for studying space vs a system that could provide high speed internet to billions of people in every corner of the world, especially in rural corners of developing world that otherwise never be able to build infrastructure to provide that kind of internet?

I will take the second option any day. I would take a satellite internet system that can connect hospitals and schools in rural Africa to the internet over of a bunch of astronomers who could use space based telescopes instead of ground based ones to further their studies.

This complaint is 2023 version of “we don’t want windmills because they are an eyesore”

This isn’t just about spacex. There are multiple companies working on satellite based internet and it could be a game changer for the developing world


wedontlikespaces t1_j5nr11o wrote

There is real value and ground-based astronomy. Not least of all if we don't have the bandwidth for everyone to use JSWT and Hubble.

In general you are right if it's a choice between this and internet infrastructure it isn't even a competition. Obviously astronomers are going to feel different, and this article is written from their perspective.


qtx t1_j5nw3n7 wrote

Nah fuck Starlink. This isn't just about researchers and scientists, this is about everyone. If Starlink puts up all 45k satellites then say goodbye to any nice sunset/sunrise photo you want to make. Say goodbye to any nightshot you want to make.

All your photos will be ruined with lightstreaks.

Most third world countries have better/cheaper internet than America, they don't need Starlink.

The people who want Starlink the most are Americans who want to live in the middle of nowhere but don't want to pay for good non-satellite internet.


Tyberculosis t1_j5o3l1y wrote

Preach it! I love looking to the night sky and all my astrophotography shots lately have at least one streak of this bullshit. I would gladly trade my internet for a proper night sky. But I also want to move to the middle of nowhere and don't care if I have cell phone or internet service. Why do they need such bright lights anyways? Honest question. Someone please teach me.


shadowinplainsight t1_j5o50yp wrote

It’s not that they have lights, it’s that they reflect the sunlight


Tyberculosis t1_j5o5h67 wrote

Thank you! I did not know this. That does make more sense than insanely bright lights.


Miami_da_U t1_j5xi1ke wrote

Starlink is invisible to the naked eye except immediately after launch when they are raising into their final orbit, and even then it is NOT during the middle of the night, it would be right after sunset and before sunrise. Also space is absolutely massive. Your photos are ruined more by planes overhead than they will be by Starlink.

Also SpaceX is taking the steps - working with astronomers in doing so - to reduce their brightness. Russia + China won't be taking those steps, you can guarantee that.


Fungnificent t1_j5ok5nt wrote

From my perspective, its more about property than anything else.

In doing what starlink has done, they've taken a public good (the night sky) and leveraged it for private gain.

That's bad legal precedent.


joeypants05 t1_j5on4ih wrote

If it provides access to billions then it will not be high speed.

It’s barely providing access to tens of thousands and speeds are plunging and caps are being put in place. There are also a limits to density and decreasing marginal gains due to interference and limits in frequency reuse which means they can’t just throw ever increasing numbers up and even with 45k up you’re launching 9k a year just to stay even otherwise you start shrinking (which also has already started over some orbits)

Also by letting starlink do whatever they want we’ve signaled that we’ll continue to let everyone simply claim orbits arbitrarily which means China, Russia, etc are now racing to launch their own constellations even if they are basically junk just to claim them without any pushback or scrutiny


HackSlashBurn t1_j5odyxf wrote

Sorry you’re getting downvotes for speaking a truth. People don’t want honest answers any more. They want someone to take their side and to be responded to. Earthbound optics are overrated.


beef-o-lipso t1_j5mavej wrote

Great. Now do the rest of the private companies and countries trying to send swarms aloft.


slowslownotbad t1_j5ogapt wrote

Fighting a lost cause on this one.

Satellite swarms are quickly becoming an indispensable tool for anybody working remotely. Military. Resource. Science.

This isn’t going away.


Canal_Volphied t1_j5ogu2n wrote

>an indispensable tool for anybody working remotely. Military. Resource. Science.

I only know about their use by Ukraine's army. Care to point out any examples related to the latter two?


slowslownotbad t1_j5ohkr5 wrote

How else are you gonna get large quantities of data off an oil rig? Or a ship? Or stream high speed internet to an airplane?

USAF AWACS jets still process all their data on board with a huge crew, because they’re stuck with very slow bandwidth connections.

Hell, Starlink will soon be serving Antarctica. Currently they send data back via tapes, flown on airplanes.


Ihadanapostrophe t1_j5orids wrote

This is factually untrue. I was a radar tech on the AWACS.

They are quite literally using computers from the 1950s. Either 2 or 3 large cabinets for radar, depending on whether it's the -B or -C model.

There isn't any data that AWACS lacks processing power for. Certainly, there is no particular need for satellites (especially StarLink) for AWACS mission capability.

Any data shared from AWACS with other Blue Forces would go through something like JTIDS, which existed decades before StarLink.

Any other use would be standard data transfer/communication over military satellites.


slowslownotbad t1_j5qruft wrote

Yeah. The crew processes the data. With their brains.

Ideally you’d get that data off board with zero crew and process it at home. But as you know, a modern radar produces a huge amount of data.

USAF is looking as Wedgetail, but keep getting cold feet because of cost. They’d rather use drones, but data rate is a problem. Which Starlink will solve.


Ihadanapostrophe t1_j5quube wrote

Data rate is not the limiting factor. Power is. There are 2x200 KW klystron amplifiers pushing out those pings. Drones don't have that kind of power if you want them to loiter.


slowslownotbad t1_j5r4w88 wrote

Yeah, but if you replace that with a distributed drone system, each TR module on something modern like a Wedgetail is waaaaay lower power. Just need data uplink.

You could essentially do the job with a collection of fighter jet radars on small drones. The power draw on an APG-81 from an F-35 would be well within the capacity of a small turbine engine.

Also, satellite AWACS from a low orbit constellation can do a lot. Expect to see these kinds of payloads launching in the near future.


NLtbal t1_j5owv1q wrote

You are assuming air superiority which is simply not a guarantee in all AO situations, especially in proxy wars where an arms length doctrine is in place, or early days of any conflict when equipment is not yet in field.


Ihadanapostrophe t1_j5oz1lt wrote

What makes you assume that? How is whether or not AWACS is operating with air superiority going to change the capabilities? How does any of that change whether or not StarLink becomes useful to AWACS?

Have you flown on the plane? I have. AWACS is an air-to-air battle management/C2 platform. It provides a gigantic radar/IFF capability to allied pilots.

The biggest upgrade to AWACS computers was in the 90s when they went from 1 color to a full 6 colors! You have zero relevant information about this topic.


Canal_Volphied t1_j5ok9j2 wrote

> Hell, Starlink will soon be serving Antarctica. Currently they send data back via tapes, flown on airplanes.

Wrong. Satellite connection with Antarctica existed long before Starlink.

>McMurdo, being a major hub for climate science and geology, among other things, already had a fairly serious satellite uplink through a traditional provider. SpaceX isn’t the first or only one using space lasers for communication — NASA had the jump on them by a couple decades and is looking into it as a way to provide high-speed internet for Artemis.


slowslownotbad t1_j5ol6pi wrote

This is a more accurate description of satellite internet in Antarctica. Current bandwidth for the whole base is 1-3 mbps, versus ~300mbps with Starlink.


Canal_Volphied t1_j5olkse wrote

Yep, even more mentions of previously existing satellite connection.

Thank you for thoroughly demolishing your previous false claims of data tape only connection.


slowslownotbad t1_j5om6e9 wrote

I didn’t say only tapes. But think about it. Modern scientific datasets are massive. Thousands of gigabytes.

1mbps running 12h per day is less than 100 gigabytes per year. You’ll saturate it with day-to-day operational messages. No way you’re doing real science.

Not to mention quality of life for the staff. Nobody’s making video calls over Iridium.


Canal_Volphied t1_j5oqxd9 wrote

> I didn’t say only tapes.

You said that before Starlink Antarctica used physical tapes. You intentionally made zero mention of this pre-Starlink satellite connection.


osteologation t1_j5pp56q wrote

Traditional satellite internet might as well be nothing, as far as the average person is concerned.


slowslownotbad t1_j5qxx7y wrote

Yeah, cuz that’s how they get scientific data off the continent. Tapes.


foonix t1_j5ont4q wrote

Why are you arguing so vehemently over something so trivial? Obviously, the access wasn't zero, but just as obviously, 3 Mbps isn't going to cut it for a lot of applications.


SuperRette t1_j5qopzv wrote

Because it's moving the goalposts? I value integrity, and watching someone try to wiggle out of what they said is dishonest.


foonix t1_j5rtth7 wrote

What they said was honest. Trying to contest it was moving the goalpost.

> Hell, Starlink will soon be serving Antarctica. Currently they send data back via tapes, flown on airplanes.

This was a good-faith answer to the question. But then the person who asked the question flipped and tried to argue with it for no good reason.

> Wrong. Satellite connection with Antarctica existed long before Starlink.

That is moving the goalpost. They didn't say it didn't exist. They just said that they transport data physically. The two aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, their own citation shows that bandwidth was a scarce resource. It indirectly supports the claim they are arguing against.


Canal_Volphied t1_j5op5ga wrote

>Why are you arguing so vehemently over something so trivial?

Why do you care? What problem do you have with me outpointing out clumsy attempts at goalpost moving?


jiggamain t1_j5or8hi wrote

Go back and read the original comment, pls and stop being a contrarian jerk in life. Their first comment is clear and leaves room for both to be true. You come off like an ass with this comment, consider deleting? Will save others the time I wasted going back to reread (and will keep others from going back, rereading, and figuring out that your reading compression leaves something to be desired…


OriginalCompetitive t1_j5otj5z wrote

Don’t tell him to delete these asinine comments are the whole reason I read read it in the first place.


Canal_Volphied t1_j5oshl9 wrote

> Their first comment is clear and leaves room for both to be true.

No it's not. Stop trying to gaslight people. >You come off like an ass

Pot, kettle. Your comment is overly vulgar and hostile. Gonna put you on ignore now.


throwawayusername6k t1_j5ov0c1 wrote

Id say a focus laser that points toward the mainland or a single sattelite thats used just for this purpose.

With mainland you cant shoot lasers around the horizin but a single sattilite can do like 1/3 of the earth coverage


beef-o-lipso t1_j5ogx58 wrote

They aren't necessary, just a lot of selfish capitalists think they are, so we end up with over priced, under-performing connectivity and call it progress that has numerous other impacts the world over and call it progress.

Regardless, had our governments had a modicum of foresight and listened to scientists, they would have been able to enact rules that limited the negative impacts of sattelites on scientific research and the people of the world.

But they didn't and the capitalists win at the expense of everyone else, again.


MC68328 t1_j5opi2k wrote

> This isn’t going away.

Well, at least not until the Kessler syndrome begins.


slowslownotbad t1_j5qy98e wrote

Yes and no. Starlink and it’s future competitors will operate in a very low orbit that is safe from Kessler syndrome. Worst case, debris fills the orbit for a couple years, but it falls out quickly due to atmospheric drag.

It could definitely spit off debris that fucks other orbits. And it could prevent us from easily leaving earth. But very low orbits will never get too cluttered.


Alien_Bird t1_j5zpvxv wrote

It has begun. We're still in the early stages.


yallmad4 t1_j5pj974 wrote

This is true, but the light occlusion issue is still a big one. Militarily speaking, it helps to be a hard to see target.


TVotte t1_j5mi27y wrote

I would burn the heavens down if it means an alternative to Comcast and Xfinity


azurleaf t1_j5moc2c wrote

Comcast literally rebranded their internet business to Xfinity because it was making everything connected to it toxic. Universal was having a fit.


AeroZep t1_j5mkfv3 wrote

Comcast and Xfinity are the same company. And you really think Elon has your back? You'll just pay more for the same service. Only difference is how it gets to your house.


cittatva t1_j5mykfr wrote

Starlink is the only decent service where I live. The alternatives are LTE metered and expensive, or terrestrial wireless slow and expensive.


AeroZep t1_j5n1g88 wrote

I was only commenting on Starlink vs. Xfinity. In certain areas where Starlink is the only reasonable high-speed game in town, there's no doubt it's a game changer.


mawdurnbukanier t1_j5mx2la wrote

We finally were able to dump Comcast for a localish fiber company. I was so looking forward to the call to cancel but the guy that helped me was super friendly and hardly gave me any run around for it. Kinda deflated the whole thing, to be honest.


AShellfishLover t1_j5nav5c wrote

You know you're in a bad relationship when the breakup is met with 'Yeah, that's fair, not even gonna try, good luck!'


floog t1_j5n2yk8 wrote

I despise them, they’re the only real option. What was awarded the best internet in the country a couple of years ago is a stones throw from my neighborhood and they wanted to expand to our neighborhood. Comcast worked with the previous governor to get something signed saying that city owned ISPs can’t expand outside of the city limits if they don’t provide utilities - good luck getting those scumbags at Xcel to relinquish control.


-The_Blazer- t1_j5oi6j2 wrote

Unfortunately infrastructure is a political problem, not a technological one. The instant a satellite swarm becomes better than Comcast, it will just turn into the new monopoly and behave exactly like them.

In my country we had high-speed rail prices in the 50 euros for years until laws were changed to create a regulated market. Now a ticket can be had for 30 euros. No new railway technology was invented in that time.


allenout t1_j5n55q7 wrote

I am dying to tell you that you still need a ISP with Starlink, Starlink is basically just a router.


bootstrapping_lad t1_j5nbx40 wrote

Starlink is the ISP. You only need their equipment and a subscription, there's nothing else.


Plzbanmebrony t1_j5mxoqc wrote

Starlink have been trying to get their brightness down since day one. There is no forced.


michaelh98 t1_j5obes5 wrote

40 years later...

"You can't force this, we're still trying!"


Plzbanmebrony t1_j5ozfau wrote

Maybe you would have a point if they were not already just over the suggested brightness. 6 is the goal and they are at 6.5.


foonix t1_j5nzhea wrote

The headline:

> Starlink Is ‘Forced’

The article:

> The agreement is voluntary


michaelh98 t1_j5ob8cu wrote

"The issue was forced by the Biden FCC, which wouldn’t give approval full Starlink’s 30,000 satellite launches until such a deal was struck:"


stuckwithaweirdo t1_j5nutvy wrote

Can't they coat with vantablack nanotubes or something?


ACCount82 t1_j5o3sge wrote

I don't know what exactly are they using, but SpaceX did in fact develop some sort of anti-reflective coating for their sats - after the first batches turned out to be extremely reflective.


Senyu t1_j5pzcll wrote

Has the patent for vantablack been released? I thought some douche bought all the rights to it and is dragonhoarding?


stuckwithaweirdo t1_j5q3dsw wrote

Common misconception. Vantablack is a nanotube coating that has been created by a lab that works mainly with satellites. It's not a paint but a coating that is highly toxic until it's been scientificly adheared to the medium. The company that makes it is the one who pushed the exclusivity clause on the artist as they don't want to deal with business outside of their core offering.

The actual douche in this story is the guy selling the pigments that are similar. He has created the fake outrage story that the artist won't sell the pigment knowing very well the artist isn't a manufacturer or (even if he was) able to sell based on the actual manufacturers agreement.


pbNANDjelly t1_j5qsg7l wrote

You're my hero. It was wild watching folks take a PR campaign so seriously


nicuramar t1_j5sy6dy wrote

> scientificly adheared

As opposed to... regularly adhered? :)


TalkativeVoyeur t1_j5swkhq wrote

I think they tried. But they have to deal with solar panels and some antennas that also reflect a lot of light and can't be painted. Also in space you have very limited cooling so making too much of your satellite black is not a good idea.


Twombls t1_j5n05h9 wrote

Just wait until the competitors get up there. No more stars for our children. Only satellites and space bilboards


NLtbal t1_j5p1iaq wrote

No more stars is a bit over the top, but even if that was the case, bringing internet to billions more people across the planet is still a fair trade off.

Elon Musk is a douche of the highest order, but the Starlink goal of having internet access everywhere is going to positively effect literally the second half of the global population without internet access to have it. The enlightenment that will provide is going to be monumental.

All that aside, the other benefit is that the cost of getting a satellite into space has plummeted to the point where projects that were considered too expensive in the past are now being reconsidered due to the decimation of pricing required to get into orbit.


SuperRette t1_j5qp9ys wrote

You really believe Elon is going to be charging internet for cheap?

Get real. He'll price gouge people for everything they're worth once he can.


NLtbal t1_j5qs124 wrote

Available for a high price is better than not at all.

Entire schools can get internet who could not do so otherwise.

Again, I believe him to have proven himself a moron many times over.


unmondeparfait t1_j5pk7hp wrote

>if that was the case, bringing internet to billions more people across the planet is still a fair trade off.

No, it's not. The internet stopped being a force for good and a reliable place to learn things more than ten years ago. I don't feel a pressing urge to spread open a pipeline of shitty advertisements and conspiracy theories to Uganda. They have enough problems.


Mr_J90K t1_j5q5f8i wrote

Consider how easily you just disregarded the hardships peoples overcome via the internet; Isolation, lack of opportunity, and lack of resources. All can be mitigated to some degree via the Internet. I personally know individuals that have done so in a way conventional society would never have allowed, to wave this away so easily requires extraordinary tunnel vision on the recent ills.


aboy021 t1_j5nnfiq wrote

I'm expecting that this will end in a cascade of space junk, as in the movie Gravity, and we'll be forced to use airships and solar powered drones. Sounds rather idyllic in a way.

Edit: As per one reply, according to Wikipedia "a large part" of the star link network would de-orbit after about 5 years due to atmospheric drag.


ACCount82 t1_j5npctk wrote

Kessler syndrome is incredibly overrated. And those megaconstellations sit in LEO - even the sats that die entirely would deorbit from there and burn up within a decade.


Angrybagel t1_j5pjpbv wrote

I'm not too worried about starlink given how low it is, but why do you think that in general? Are things like anti satellite missile tests worrying to you?


ACCount82 t1_j5pngik wrote

The main thing is: active Kessler syndrome prevents you from staying in a select orbit, or a group of orbits, long term.

It's not that much of a danger to passing spaceships - the main hazard is to satellites and space stations. You can still reach Moon or Mars with Kessler syndrome ongoing. And it's avoidable even for stationary objects if you don't need a very specific orbit. This is why GEO, the main "very specific orbit", is so tightly regulated - it's one of the worst orbits to lose to Kessler syndrome.


Bensemus t1_j5r5eqf wrote

They are definitely way worse than constellations. It however seems countries have stopped doing them.


Iceykitsune2 t1_j5ondyw wrote

Starlink satellites are so low that they naturally deorbit.


ChronoLegion2 t1_j5p8t9x wrote

Gravity overdid the concept. Anything flying that fast would shoot off into space. Orbit quite literally depends on your speed in relation to the planet. If you’re moving much faster, you can’t remain in the same orbit, since an orbit is just a path you follow when you fall and miss the ground (as Douglas Adams would put it)


mooseGoose89 t1_j5pb1hk wrote

This is incorrect.

The speed required for an object to go into space and orbit the Earth (orbital velocity) is about 28,000 km/hr (17,500 mph) at low earth orbit.

It's not impossible to have two objects in LEO traveling in opposite directions. Not sure what you think, but 56,000km/hr is fast enough to do unstoppable damage if they were to collide.


ChronoLegion2 t1_j5pjl1k wrote

Huh. Didn’t think about them moving in opposite directions


mooseGoose89 t1_j5pln41 wrote

Opposite directions might be a bit of a stretch in reality. But, at those velocities, any angular collision would also be pretty catastrophic.


Spepsium t1_j5pg25f wrote

A lot of weirdly placed anti-internet comments in this r/technology post lmfao


escapedfromthecrypt t1_j5pw4dg wrote

If an Elon financed company cures Cancer or Herpes they will become good things


Aggravating-Word-623 t1_j5p06zh wrote

I love how starlink was the greatest thing to help war stricken people communicate and Elon was praised heavily, that is until he bought twitter.


Humble-Perspective35 t1_j5p8ilb wrote

Most reasonable people realized how much of a piece of shit Elon was when he called that diver a pedo and sent his harassment army after him


osteologation t1_j5pogcp wrote

Do what it takes spacex starlink is my only realistic option for internet.


VikingBorealis t1_j5qvdp7 wrote

Haven't they added light shields and rotated them to not reflect post launch distribution for at least a year, probably more now?


bak2redit t1_j5p1wzh wrote

I am of the belief that there should be a requirement to retrieve your satellites after some time. This will prevent the increasing danger of orbital collisions.


SkyeShark t1_j5q4xyc wrote

Wish Google's Loon would have been more successful.


InquisitiveGamer t1_j5qoz7b wrote

They were allowed to launch 3500 satellites. Maybe the robots capable of cleaning space debris should have been created before. Soon it will be to late and there will a collapse of satellite in the geosynchronous zone. At that point it will be far far more difficult as any launches into space may become extremely unsafe with 10,000s-100,000s pieces of debris flying at up to 25,000mph around earth at which point the horrors of space debris will be real.


WhatsIsMyName t1_j5utsh2 wrote

I'm a little confused as to why these things need lights on them anyway. Does it serve some purpose?


SubsidedMonster t1_j5pnb13 wrote

But how much data do they transmit to the moon? Oh well theirs always The Helium Network.


Charming_Ad_4 t1_j5oakpq wrote

Forced? Lol

Another Bullshit headline. Not even reading the article. They don't deserve the click they so desperately want


michaelh98 t1_j5obqvc wrote

I will agree that the writing is shit but skim more slowly.

"The issue was forced by the Biden FCC, which wouldn’t give approval full Starlink’s 30,000 satellite launches until such a deal was struck:"


Charming_Ad_4 t1_j5ocs46 wrote

That's Bullshit. From the first Starlink batches launched, SpaceX started talking to astronomers and began mitigating the light caused from Starlinks. They did a variety of measures, like dark paint or changing the inclination of the sats. That's been going on for years now. They didn't got forced to do it, cause there is no law or rule that says so. They did it cause they wanted to mitigate the effects willingly, from the beginning.

This is just media misinformation.


Castrovania t1_j5o35vl wrote

Imagine pretending to care about the environment. On the internet to strangers.



aquarain t1_j5mfvil wrote

They have been improving the visuals the whole time.


Foe117 t1_j5n3pge wrote

The vast majority of astronomical research programs at optical wavelengths only begin well after twilight, when the sky reaches its darkest levels. Hunting for an elusive quasar or measuring the distances of high-redshift galaxies takes place long after any Starlink satellite can still be seen via the sunlight reflecting off it. SpaceX has already been experimenting with finding the best Mitigation techniques with their Starlink Satellites since May of 2019, first starting with paint, coatings, etc, and now are planning to install mirrors to mask themselves completely with the next generation satellites.


CompetitiveYou2034 t1_j5o2b4c wrote

If nothing else, momentarily passing in front of objects causes them to apparently blink, or at least lose a few photons..

Will have to take into account the starlink orbital locations database, identifying each starlink satellite with it's orbital parameters and masking version.

Ground based observations will become harder with increasing #s of starlink types in near orbit, from multiple countries.

SpaceX can gain good will by providing an "offset" by reduced launch costs to higher orbits of astronomical sensors.


marsumane t1_j5mqfen wrote

Light... What!? Are we going to deal with that pesky moon next?


pwnies t1_j5mjmzs wrote

Don't get me wrong, I’m not a fan of Elon, but IMO the functionality of swam sats outweighs the downsides of the light pollution they cause. Software filtering can provide solutions to telescope captures, but there's little that can provide internet access in the same way worldwide.

If we want cheap and accessible information worldwide, satellites are the best solution to that problem.


do_you_even_ship_bro t1_j5mt5ya wrote

This opinion is what leads to terrible societal decisions at the detriment of the environment. We need food so over fishing is NBD. Plastic is amazing so use it everywhere. Strip mining…. We can do satellites w/o running astronomers view. Space telescopes might be better but land ones are way easier to make…


pwnies t1_j5ricq1 wrote

First, this is a perfect example of a slippery slope fallacy in place. "Satellite infrastructure will lead to less concerns about strip mining" is an unfounded premise.

Second, scientists are actively telling us overfishing/single-use plastics/strip mining are disasters in progress, but scientists aren't saying the same thing about swam sats.

Bruce Macintosh, director of the University of California Observatories, has said this about Starlink:

> For astronomers I think this is more of a nuisance than a disaster, but changing the sky for every human needs talking about.

Optical telescopes can filter out the light flares these small satellites leave easily. The larger impact is likely radio telescopes which are more heavily affected, but even these can be mitigated if scientists know the parameters of them. Quote from a nat geo article on this:

> “As a general principle, radio astronomy facilities are particularly vulnerable to satellite downlinks and to airborne uses, as radio telescopes cannot be protected from high-altitude transmissions through geographical shielding alone,” says Indiana University’s Liese van Zee, chair of the National Academy of Science’s Committee on Radio Frequencies, or CORF. She says it is CORF’s understanding that a coordination agreement with Starlink is currently in the works, and that historically such agreements have balanced the interests of science and telecom companies.

> Both SpaceX and OneWeb—another company with plans to launch a fleet of communications satellites—have been working out such details with the National Science Foundation and the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, adds Harvey Liszt of the NRAO.

There is value in this infrastructure that humanity benefits from. It clearly isn't a disaster according to those in the know. Overall I see satellites as being a net benefit rather than a detriment to humanity.


systemsfailed t1_j5qvfqi wrote

Absolutely not. In the vast majority of locations fiber lines are significanluy better. Also starlink is significantly too expensive for the global poor don't fucking pretend it isn't lol.


pwnies t1_j5rffvc wrote

Fiber lines are better for throughput, but are significantly more expensive. We have recent data from Australia's attempt to install fiber nationwide as a good comparison point of costs.

Australia estimated 14-15b AUD (about 10.5b USD) to run fiber to 98% of the country's population (though this would encompass < 10% of the landmass). Fiber is a mature technology, so we should expect these costs to be fairly static.

Starlink's investment costs so far have been 10b to design and launch, but also provide coverage nearly worldwide. Swarm satellites are a fairly new tech for internet infrastructure, so we should expect the cost to decrease over time.

Overall for delivering internet worldwide, a swam satellite based approach is far cheaper (though will provide less throughput). For getting internet to those in developing or remote countries, it's an excellent choice overall.


systemsfailed t1_j5riemx wrote

Significantly more expensive? Over what timeframe?Cheaper than the constellation with a 5 year shelf life that has to be constantly relaunched?

The constellation that cannot possibly handle the bandwidth of tens of millions or more?

The AUS population alone is 25 million.
Starlink speeds are already slowing with the subs they have, in what world do you expect this to be feasible on a global scale? Also Musk himself has said it won't be functional in cities


achillymoose t1_j5nmqm0 wrote

Civilization has gone on for millenia without the internet. I'd trade the internet for a sky full of galaxies in a heartbeat.

>If we want cheap and accessible information worldwide

I, for one, could care less about this. I don't think the people of third world countries are missing out by not having Tik Tok


ACCount82 t1_j5npvoz wrote

Internet is a great boon, especially to people in third world countries. Today, there are people who wouldn't be able to get an education otherwise - but were able to self-educate through Internet. Access to information and access to education used to be some of the greatest inequalities of the world - and Internet does a lot to level the playing field.

"A sky full of galaxies" is just another pretty thing in a world full of pretty things. Internet's benefits go far beyond that.


achillymoose t1_j5nqzgq wrote

>a world full of pretty things.

It won't be if we keep destroying all the pretty things


[deleted] t1_j5mlhww wrote



D1g1taln0m4d t1_j5mqnco wrote

So you’re saying the first picture of a black hole is the work of dinosaurs? You’re confused. Telescopes in space or on the moon are great but land based telescopes will ALWAYS be a thing


Drakonx1 t1_j5mr7df wrote

Plus, fuck amateurs who just want to look up at the night sky right?


tickleMyBigPoop t1_j5me7k5 wrote

Lol when we have mass industry up in orbit starlink wont seem like a big deal.

>Again, it’s worth reiterating that Musk insisted that none of this would ever be a problem.

Ummm when did he say that?


sonofagunn t1_j5mfrlv wrote

Hey, I've got a good idea. People who need to see beyond the Starlink swarm can just pay SpaceX to help deploy their stuff into orbit beyond the Starlink satellites. Problem solved!