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.
DialsMavis t1_j5nesfz wrote
“Free speech absolutist”
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?
Canal_Volphied t1_j5oh3ph wrote
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.
SquirrelDynamics t1_j5nlqib wrote
Can't they just make the LED's be less LEDy?
LiveCat6 t1_j5o3p2j wrote
It's not LEDs, it's reflection of sunlight off the sats
SquirrelDynamics t1_j5oxxhz wrote
Ahhh I didn't know that
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments