• MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I’m confused because band pass filters exist. Can they not add a filter to eliminate the frequencies that starlink uses?

    Also, the starlink satellites use phased array antennas, guess that wasn’t a great idea either.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That works great unless you’re specifically looking for results in those frequencies.

      It’s the equivalent of trying to look for a red laser pointer dot on a wall and some jackass put red floodlights in front of you aimed at the wall.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        They could just shift the frequency up and down so they can get data in those ranges. There’s advantages to them being linked together and being able to communicate with them. They could probably also Shut down those bands completely temporarily so some science can get done.

        I get this is a HUGE issue, but this also isn’t this massive non accountable issue to get some science done. Just makes it harder, these embellished headlines don’t help stuff.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Agreed. Idk I dunno enough about radio telescopes to know what frequencies they typically look at.

        Nor do I know what bands star link works on.

        Either way, maybe Elon should stop launching trash into space.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      The quote says “it will stop us doing science in that spectrum.”

      They can filter out starlink’s frequencies. What else does that filter out? If the radio telescope uses that spectrum, they can’t filter it out and continue to do their work. As I understand, this would be all radio telescopes looking within our solar system.

      Space pollution frustrates me because there’s truly nothing I can do about it. Maybe someone will democratize a laser or something to shoot down these bullshit non-science satellites, like some Johnny Pneumonic shit, or was it Escape from L.A., no, it was Congo.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        They do, and they did. Since star link is global by nature, I’m sure many countries radio regulatory bodies had a say.

        Apparently radio telescopes were not on their minds when they made a decision.

    • dyc3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yes, that completely destroys the information in that band. That is the point, the satellites are using these bands, overpowering what was already naturally there.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yup. I understand and agree that it would make any work in those bands essentially meaningless.

        I’m not by any means giving Elon, or anyone else, a green light to just pollute the airwaves with my comment. Simply put, he should have not done what he did. Star link is a cool concept but it should have gone through more review before being put into orbit. I suspect if that had happened, it wouldn’t have been put in orbit.

        IMO, it’s kind of just space junk at this point.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I’m sure Musk is perfectly willing to turn certain constellations off at specific times… For a price, of course.

  • Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Sending so many satellites also requires so many rocket launchers that Google passed on it because it was too polluting.

    Starlink is the poster child of “fuck you, I got mine.”

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    starlink wouldn’t have a leg to stand on (in the US, can’t speak for elsewhere) if isps were held to installing/maintaining/upgrading infrastructure that was already paid for by the federal government decades ago and then the isps just didn’t do the work.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 hours ago

      That’s a nice thought, but

      • Starlink has no old infrastructure
      • Rural and remote customers are difficult to wire up

      Even in the best case where US was close to 100% wired up like we paid for, Starlink would have a market in remote areas world wide, RVs, aircraft, ships

      • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The US government asked the big ISPs how much it would take to wire everyone up to high-speed Internet, then passed a bill to give them a ludicrous lump sum to do so (IIRC it was hundreds of billions). The money was split between dividends, buying up other companies, and suing the federal government for attempting to ask for the thing they’d paid for, and in the end, the government gave up. That left loads of people with no high-speed Internet, and the ISPs able to afford to buy out anyone who attempted to provide a better or cheaper service. Years down the line, once someone with silly amounts of money for a pet project and a fleet of rockets appeared, there was an opportunity for them to provide a product to underserved customers who could subsidise the genuinely impossible-to-run-a-cable-to customers.

        If the US had nearly-ubiquitous high-speed terrestrial Internet, there wouldn’t have been enough demand for high-speed satellite Internet to justify making Starlink. I think this is what the other commenter was alluding to.

      • bitchkat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 hours ago

        We managed to wire up large swaths of rural area for electricity back in the 1930’s

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        This, I’m both very rural and in an RV at the same time. Starlink is literally my only means of playing games. The only other even remotely viable option is LTE internet from something like T-Mobile but out here the towers don’t really have much capacity so I might be able to play the game fine and I might just start disconnecting Midway through a match randomly as the internet struggles to even load a basic web page

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Welp, I guess we all have to suffer with no internet in rural areas because of some astronomy nerds. I’ll take global, high-speed, expensive, but still affordable internet over some shots of distant nebulas any day. Not a Musk fan, but this sounds like a desperate attempt to find something to dunk on him for. There’s tons of reasons already, but this ain’t one.

            • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Scientists doing science > tech bro nomads cosplaying as explorers but actually just playing fortnite in a van. You’re also ignoring the other downsides besides spectral emissions. Read the article I linked.

            • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              You certainly act like a Musk fan.

              This thing helps my fun but hurts lot of other people’s fun, fuck em! Who cares about Kessler syndrome and pollution, I gotta game!!

              I also live in a rural RV. I’ve been stuck in one and using copper wiring since 2004. I don’t have the money for Starlink, never have, never will. The upfront cost is insane. I also game on copper wires. Solo and multiplayer games, with my friends over discord.

            • AEsheron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 hours ago

              The point of this thread is that Starlink only exists to solve this problem because the ISPs were paid to do it the old fashioned way and decided to fuck off with the cash instead. It wouldn’t have solved the RV issue, but if nost rural areas had the cable internet the government bought, then Starlink likely never gets off the ground, pun intended.

              • drathvedro@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                48 minutes ago

                Starlink only exists to solve this problem because the ISPs were paid to do it the old fashioned way

                This only applies to the US. My point is that by it’s nature it is global, and it competes with all the shitty local monopolistic ISP’s around the world. Like, I intend to do a cross-country tour around mediterranean next year, and from experience, local cell providers there can be quite a lot of hit and miss. If starlink is activated there by the time I’m all set, I’m dropping the cash, no question about it. And yeah, like @spidermanchild said, I’m just a tech bro nomad cosplaying an explorer, but there are also people actually living in those regions that have to deal with this bullshit. I know it’s unpopular opinion but I’d say a push against those local ISP’s and getting those rural people a decent internet connection is ultimately doing more good than whatever inconvenience scientists have to deal with scrubbing trails off telescope imagery and filtering out the radio interferences.

          • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            I’m just saying blindly calling for it to go away entirely (which i see a lot of on stuff like this) isn’t helpful. Clearly they need to tone down emissions but it’s a useful service.

            I work 10hr shifts at work and it’s 1hr 30 both to and from work, moving isn’t really an option for me atm. I don’t think it’s unreasonable I’d like to be able to stream my shows or play games with my friends to relax

          • dubious@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            lordkitsuna is the answer, dude. more people getting away from the grind of the big machine to live remote lives far from society is the answer. i don’t like starlink either but these networks are crucial for the modern nomad to exist.

            • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              The answer to what? If everyone does this, there won’t be a single remote place on earth that isn’t crawling with sprinter vans. It can’t scale, and it doesn’t need to be specifically catered to. You want the wilderness, you get the wilderness. You want low latency Internet, then get to a fiber connection. We don’t need every first world amenity everywhere.

              • dubious@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                nah. you can live in the city if that’s what you like. i’ll do what i like. do you really want to alienate non-urban liberals?

                depopulation is a possible alternative to preventing swarms of sprinter vans too. you really don’t want to put everyone in a city.

                • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 minutes ago

                  I’m not trying to alienate anyone, I’m trying to understand why low latency gaming needs for digital nomads is worth the real downsides of providing such a service (scientific, GHG, atmospheric tinkering, etc). I also believe that we should leave a lot more of the earth alone and that nature matters. I’m not trying to put people anywhere, just recognizing there are pros and cons to different living schemes, humans are social creatures, and population of 2 areas don’t warrant large societal investments. I’m similarly against a hypothetical drone sushi delivery service for rural Canadadian boreal forests if that happens to have real downsides too.

            • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Does the modern nomad need to exist in the first place? Taking your money into an RV so you can guzzle gas on it, and just stream videos while you pretend to enjoy nature?

              • dubious@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                you can just exist in a remote place and not make videos too my friend. sorry that your understanding of what life outside a city looks like has been shaped by the internet instead of reality.

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Isn’t Starlink also too expensive because you have to replace the satellites every 5 years? As in you’d have to sell to basically everybody on earth to be profitable. And they charge 50Euros a month, almost twice as much as I currently pay, and I’m satisfied with my current provider.

    • asterfield@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 hours ago

      50Euros a month, almost twice as much as I current pay

      Wow Canada sucks in in our ISP choices

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Cries in long island

        I have one option that isn’t 4g wireless crap… It’s $110/month for 500mbps… It was $80/month but they felt the need to make more money by eliminating their lower tiers and “forcing” you to upgrade… I just suddenly had a 500mbps plan and $110 bill without asking them to change anything…

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Their target market is people who don’t have a better option, not people who already have fibre to the door.

        • dubious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          not exactly. many starlink users are not your grandpa in his $500k RV. it’s the digital nomad in their $5k RV held together by duct tape. some of us would do anything to get away from all the bullshit of modern society, and quite frankly i think the world needs more of us.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I was being sarcastic. I simply don’t believe that there’s enough money to be made selling satellite internet to support replacing a large constellation of satellites every 5 years. Especially since Starlink’s competitors use higher up satellites, meaning they don’t have to replace their satellites as often.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        In fact, increasing Earth’s albedo by pumping certain types of chemicals into the higher layers of the atmosphere has been proposed as a possible geoengineering solution that could slow down global warming.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire project was architected as a way to completely sidestep regulatory approval and test geoengineering theories before climate change really starts to pop. Elon and his fellow plutocrats are undoubtedly sociopathic enough to do that.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    231
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    Fuckin space garbage is what it is.

    Yes it was impressive that they landed a rocket again once, but the quantity of launches and satellites is doing nothing good for anyone. It should’ve been a stepping stone for better technology, but instead they’re just mining money. Privately owned space engineering is a disgrace to humanity.

    Space engineering used to unite even the worst opponents as with the international space station, but now those institutions are underfunded, while billionaire space-musk can shoot his loads into the atmosphere without any regard to the rest of the worlds population living inside said sphere.

    Tax the asshole already.

    • dubious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      agreed. it’s a technology we need but like everything meant to improve humanity, it should be publicly owned (no, not the stock market - truly public).

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      I was excited about starlink when it was announced, but already it’s way too expensive, already bows to actual totalitarians and isn’t affordable on the ocean and not available in remote places without a license.

      And with more satellite constellations planned by amazon and others, it seems the kessler syndrome is just a question of time.

      • Crampon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        It’s extremely affordable on the ocean. What are you talking about?

        Just until recently satellite internet was really expensive. Like only large corporations could afford it. And the bandwidth was shit. Also it was barely available in the deep northern and southern hemisphere. Sure it’s considered expensive for the regular kayaking dude. But it’s insanely more available than ever before.

        The dudes an asshole. But don’t invent arguments.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        On the Kessler point, Starlink birds fly at an altitude where they will deorbit in 4-8 years if they go dead, so that particular orbit will always be fairly clean, and if a Kessler event does happen, the debris will deorbit in a reasonable length of time.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Turkey and Russia. It’s clear that profit seeking corporations would bow, but then Elon screams bloody murder when reactionary forces in Brazil manipulating social media get censored.

            • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              16 hours ago

              To bow, or bow down or kneel for. But I’m not going to google that for you haha. The basic problem is that starlink theoretically has immense power so it becomes a political tool. He bows to those ones but not to legitimate democratic interests.

              Especially once starlink and others can make landline based internet connections obsolete by pricing them out - which they are not currently doing though, but it seems only a matter of time with competition. Basically we could get to a situation where there are only like 2 or 3 internet provider practically controlling internet globally.

              • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                16 hours ago

                They won’t be able to price landline based connections out as long as they have to replace their satellites every 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re running at a loss currently.

    • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      When people talk about taxing these horrible people I think of tax as being a euphamism

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      18 hours ago

      the quantity of launches and satellites is doing nothing good for anyone

      Except for the millions of people accessing internet via Starlink to whom the alternative is either no internet, slow internet or extremely expensive internet.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Is it weird I agree these are terrible and yet also hope this spurs the end of ground based observation in favor of a larger orbital presence?

    • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      We could and should be doing both ground and orbital radio telescope observations. One really interesting idea I’ve seen floated is to put one on the far-side of the moon; it’d be shielded from all our radio emissions but, of course, it would be somewhat suspectable to interference from the sun for weeks at a time.

      What I’ve never understood about Starlink is how it’s better than existing satellite internet beamed from geosynchronous craft… like, geosync is crowded (especially over North America and Europe), but it’s not so crowded we couldn’t put a couple more transponders up there. Objects in geosync rarely have the astronomical side effects that Starlink is apparently causing. It would even solve the Starlink issue of having to have an expense af receiver with active tracking… just nail up a stationary ku-band dish that doesn’t need to move ever. This is already solved technology.

      • i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        19 hours ago

        The problem with geosynchronous orbit is that you need to be at a high altitude to maintain it. That increases the packet round trip time to a receiver on the ground. Starlink satellites orbit low enough to give a theoretical 20ms ping. A geostationary satellite would be at best 500ms. It’s fine for some tasks but lousy for applications that need low latency, like video calling.

          • booly@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            3 hours ago

            The geosynchronous satellites are about 650 65 times higher than Starlink satellites, so the speed of light is a significant limiting factor.

            Geosynchronous orbit is 35,700 km (3.57 x 10^7 m) above sea level. At that distance, signals moving at the speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) take about .12 seconds to go that far. So a round trip is about .240 seconds or 240 milliseconds added to the ping.

            Starlink orbits at an altitude of 550 km (5.5 x 10^5 m), where the signal can travel between ground and satellite in about 0.0018 seconds, for 3.6 millisecond round trip. Actual routing and processing of signals, especially relaying between satellites, adds time to the processing.

            But no matter how much better the signal processing can get, the speed of light accounts for about a 200-230 millisecond difference at the difference in altitudes.

          • DesertCreosote@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            18 hours ago

            Unfortunately it’s a hard limit due to the speed of light. Theoretically you could use quantum entanglement to get around it, but then of course you wouldn’t need the satellites anymore.

              • DesertCreosote@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                18 hours ago

                Sorry, I meant theoretically as in “at some distant point in the future where we’ve figured out how to make it work.” I probably read too much science fiction.

                • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  In real life, all quantum entanglement means is that you can entangle two particles, move them away from each other, and still know that when you measure one, the other will have the opposite value. It’s akin to putting a red ball in one box and a blue ball in another, then muddling them up and posting them to two addresses. When opening one box, you instantly know that because you saw a red ball, the other recipient has a blue one or vice versa, but that’s it. The extra quantum bit is just that the particles still do quantum things as if they’re a maybe-red-maybe-blue superposition until they’re measured. That’s like having a sniffer dog at the post office that flags half of all things with red paint and a quarter of all things with blue paint as needing to be diverted to the police magically redirect three eighths of each colour instead of different amounts of the two colours. The balls didn’t decide which was red and which was blue until the boxes were opened, but the choice always matches.

                • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  10 hours ago

                  Science fiction quantum entanglement is not the same as real life quantum entanglement. Science fiction has spooky action at a distance, real life doesn’t.

                  The speed of light is the speed of causality, the speed of information. It is physically impossible to send information at speeds greater than the speed of light.

        • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          17 hours ago

          In the past 6 months, Starlink satellites made 50,000 collision avoidance maneuvers. They now maneuver 275 times a day to avoid crashing into other space objects.

          They use an on board AI to calculate the positions, but each time they course-correct, it throws off forecasting accuracy for several days. So a collision isn’t an if, it’s a when, and suddenly we’re in Kessler Syndrome territory. Or maybe enough people will eventually wake up and realize Musk was an actual idiot all along.

          But until then, great, low pings for video calls. Hurray.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            16 hours ago

            This is completely factually inaccurate. 2 minutes on Google will help you learn but seeing as how you’ve been spewing crap all over this thread I don’t think it’s worth my time to even bother helping you understand.

              • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                Search the web for “starlink Kessler syndrome”. It’s very well documented. It’s also discussed elsewhere in this thread.

              • ebc@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                Shortest answer is that even if all Starlink satellites suddently exploded at the same time for no reason, they’d fall back to Earth in a matter of weeks. They’re waaaay lower than the other satellites you’re thinking of (see discussion on geo-stationary satellites for why), so they need to be actively pushed every few days just to stay up. They’re so low they’re still subject to atmospheric drag.

              • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                Search the web for “star link Kessler syndrome”. It’s well documented. It’s also discussed elsewhere in this thread.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      The scale at which we build radio telescopes on the ground simply isn’t possible in space.

      • BlushedPotatoPlayers@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Just to add, radio telescopes easily have diameters of several 10 to several 100 meters, you won’t put that easily in space. And even if you do, maybe one, not tens of them. And these are often used in network as well for interferometry to have higher spatial resolution, so that would be gone as well.

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          A couple of satellites can make a larger telescope than we could ever build on earth, and you avoid the natural interference as well as the the interference from other satellites (star link isn’t the only source of interference…).

      • CrinterScaked@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Not easily, perhaps. But it’s certainly possibly. We already have space technology for unfolding small packages into large sheets. Not to mention, you don’t need a single 100m collection surface when you can accomplish similar things with many smaller surfaces spaced apart. See the Very Large Array.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      18 hours ago

      It’s never been cheaper or easier to launch, ironically enough thanks in part to Starlink.

      • freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        How about we check back in on your comment in say, oh, 5 years, when we become forcibly earthbound, victims of Kessler’s Syndrome? Because by then, a starlink satellite will collide with another creating a chain reaction of collisions, birthing an ever-growing cascading field of Elon’ space debris bukkake all over the Earth’s face.

        But hey, Pocket Rocket Boy has got to have an excuse to keep launching so he can continue collecting his government welfare checks. $15.3 billion since 2003 and climbing.

        • evranch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          17 hours ago

          You don’t understand Kessler Syndrome. Starlink satellites are in an orbit that requires maintenance or it decays rapidly. These orbits are used on purpose as they are “self-cleaning”.

          Kessler Syndrome doesn’t even mean that we can’t fly through an orbit, only not occupy it for fear of collision. Space is incredibly, ridiculously large, and the chance of a departing rocket being struck by debris is miniscule.

          In any case, a catastrophic multi-sat collision would only result in a meteor shower. These things are designed to re-enter in 5 years even in normal service.

          I live in rural Canada and Starlink is the only reason I’m able to post this. It’s been a tremendous asset to our lives, and as an aerospace enthusiast I’m all on board as well. As an astronomy enthusiast I’m less impressed but forsee a push into more, larger space telescopes.

          • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            In any case, a catastrophic multi-sat collision would only result in a meteor shower

            Previous collisions have resulted in debris that intersected with higher orbits. While those debris themselves will decay, if they collide with something in a higher orbit, a significant portion of the resulting debris will be there for a very long time.

            Look at the apogees resulting from a major collision in 2009 in fig 3 on page 2

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            You shouldnt use starlink because you can’t trust the company. Thats unfortunate you can’t get other service.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            14 hours ago

            I’ve never seen an intelligent comment talking about Kessler syndrome, it’s something idiots seem to latch on to and prattle on about in the comments, until someone who has at least watched a YouTube video about it corrects them.

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 hours ago

      No it’s utterly pragmatic.

      The future of space exploration is in space.

  • linkshulkdoingit69@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    To me Elon Musk is like the real-life, slightly less dramatic and slightly less evil Handsome Jack out of Borderlands

  • mvirts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    If it can interfere with large aperture ground telescopes… it would be a shame if those ground telescopes grew transmitters and started interfering back.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    All worth it so lord Musk can push his shitty memes to remote tribes in the Amazon.

  • B312@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    19 hours ago

    What’s up with some meme communities and people not posting memes on them?