Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Scientist: These new SpaceX Starlink satellites are farking up my astronomy and such   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Satellite, Sky, Astronomy, Astronomer, Orbit, Telescope, launching batches of dozens of satellites, Spacecraft  
•       •       •

1360 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 08 Aug 2020 at 7:35 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-08-08 6:57:21 AM  
29 votes:
Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.
 
2020-08-08 8:12:57 AM  
21 votes:
What, letting a billionaire do whatever stupid idea he pays his engineers to come up with, with no oversight, might have negative consequences? Who saw that coming?

Next you'll be telling me that a guy who bought his way into every 'success' he's ever had ISN'T some kind of bootstrappy genius, or that the fact that his businesses have taken billions upon billions of dollars in government handouts DOESN'T make him look like a massive, out-of-touch hypocrite when he rails against 'socialism'.
 
2020-08-08 8:06:14 AM  
19 votes:
A LOT of science is done by amateur astronomers, and they sure as shiat aren't going to just put telescopes into space.
 
2020-08-08 8:24:43 AM  
16 votes:

way south: most amateur astronomers don't have equipment sensitive enough to be affected.


If you can see the satellites with an unaided eye, every astronomical instrument will be affected.
 
2020-08-08 9:27:58 AM  
10 votes:

LordJiro: What, letting a billionaire do whatever stupid idea he pays his engineers to come up with, with no oversight, might have negative consequences? Who saw that coming?

Next you'll be telling me that a guy who bought his way into every 'success' he's ever had ISN'T some kind of bootstrappy genius, or that the fact that his businesses have taken billions upon billions of dollars in government handouts DOESN'T make him look like a massive, out-of-touch hypocrite when he rails against 'socialism'.


I find it hilarious we're going to destroy the night sky

Because that's EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH  than fixing our stagnate and corrupt cable/telecom fiefdoms.
 
2020-08-08 8:17:42 AM  
10 votes:

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


Building and operating a telescope in space is enormously expensive. Is Musk going to foot the bill? Nope, like every other PoS "capitalist", he's happy to free ride on a public resource as long as the government that is in his pocket lets him to, but he'll oppose paying the true cost of his "enterprise" with all the money he can spare.
 
2020-08-08 10:57:28 AM  
9 votes:

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


Yeah, no.

This "solution" comes up every time folks complain about these enormous LEO constellations and it's absurd. Yes, there are reasons to put some telescopes in orbit- when the atmosphere isn't transparent to the wavelength you want.  But the idea of building large visible light scopes in space is Musk-ian wankery

Realize the Hubble is *one* telescope.  It's both extremely expensive and tiny, even by the standards of when it was launched.  It's close to EOL , and astronomers are building a bunch of new telescopes so we should see a replacement, right?  Except we aren't- there are *zero* plans to replace it.  (Webb isn't a replacement, it's an IR scope and thus falls under the "wavelengths blocked by the atmosphere" rule)

Here's the scope most affected by Starlink It's 12x the size of Hubble.  The structure weighs hundreds of tons, and since it's a survey telescope needs to be able to slew rapidly, stop, then slew again- it covers the night sky every three days.  If you have a way to rapidly and precisely slew an object weighing hundreds of tons in space for years on end, please contact a physicist since you've probably invented new physics

And Rubin/LSST is *small* by modern standards.  The Thirty Meter Telescope is the sort of more general telescope now under construction as opposed to a hypothetical Hubble II.  It has a collecting area more than 150x that of Hubble and masses thousands of tons- just the hole in the center of the mirror for the light to pass through is bigger than Hubble.  The pic below should give you some idea of the scale of modern telescopes- putting them in space is simply not possible

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-08 7:43:45 AM  
8 votes:

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


But then he'll have to take their money in exchange!

...Wait a minute.
 
2020-08-08 11:44:20 AM  
6 votes:

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


You sound like someone who doesn't understand just how big planetary telescopes are.
 
2020-08-08 9:47:30 AM  
6 votes:

MurphyMurphy: I find it hilarious we're going to destroy the night sky

Because that's EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH  than fixing our stagnate and corrupt cable/telecom fiefdoms.


Light pollution has already destroyed the night sky for the vast majority of the population.
Unfortunately they don't care about seeing stars so much as they care about seeing the freeway they're driving on.

Even if we solved the telecom problem and allowed people to build towers and run cables anywhere (destroying the landscape in the process), there are many places you can't easily reach with a landline.
Where I live it's an archipelago of small islands and tiny populations.  Even if we wanted to run the cables it would mean digging miles of trenches and dropping cables all over the sea for a few thousand people living here or there. It's not really practical and we sure as hell cant afford it.

Satellite bypasses that problem entirely. It comes with the risk of polluting orbit but we were already willing to run bulldozers all over the place for data.
 
2020-08-08 9:30:53 AM  
6 votes:
Can't wait for the coal industry's solution to solar power

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-08 11:29:22 AM  
5 votes:
Sorry to the guys here, but Elon still won't let you suck his dick.
 
2020-08-08 9:57:07 AM  
5 votes:

way south: MurphyMurphy: I find it hilarious we're going to destroy the night sky

Because that's EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH  than fixing our stagnate and corrupt cable/telecom fiefdoms.

Light pollution has already destroyed the night sky for the vast majority of the population.
Unfortunately they don't care about seeing stars so much as they care about seeing the freeway they're driving on.

Even if we solved the telecom problem and allowed people to build towers and run cables anywhere (destroying the landscape in the process), there are many places you can't easily reach with a landline.
Where I live it's an archipelago of small islands and tiny populations.  Even if we wanted to run the cables it would mean digging miles of trenches and dropping cables all over the sea for a few thousand people living here or there. It's not really practical and we sure as hell cant afford it.

Satellite bypasses that problem entirely. It comes with the risk of polluting orbit but we were already willing to run bulldozers all over the place for data.


Digging a trench and running a cable is nothing. I know a thing or two about transport.

Yeah, its hard. So is providing electricity. Natural gas. But it's an easy task for a civilization such as ours.

And for areas more remote than that? Existing higher orbit sats work. Have a good friend that's used one as his only solution for decades. He torrents, uses steam. Not perfect but he's the one that wants to be separated from civilization.

Billions. Enough to run the cables many times over, are vacuumed up by the investor class. Fueled by grants from your tax dollars, insulated by politics.

I don't see any wisdom in calling the night sky lost. Nor in "hurr all telescopes just go to moon duh"

You've been screwed so long, when thinking how to fix your problem, you dont even consider the possibility of one pen stroke vs launching thousands of satellites.
 
2020-08-08 8:19:42 AM  
5 votes:

GoldSpider: A LOT of science is done by amateur astronomers, and they sure as shiat aren't going to just put telescopes into space.


When starship was pitched I recall they said the individual ride rice per starlink satellite could be as low as $4000.
Through the magic of ride share, mass production, and knowing A guy who owns a rocket factory and also owes you a favor, You very possibly can...

Fark user imageView Full Size



/this article pops up every starlink launch.
/problems overblown, most amateur astronomers don't have equipment sensitive enough to be affected.
 
2020-08-08 12:20:40 PM  
4 votes:

New Farkin User Name: I'm still not sure why this impacts astronomers that much? Amateurs aren't doing very sensitive observations where a bright object passing between them and their target will ruin everything; for stuff like asteroid observations I don't think it'd matter at all. And professions who are doing sophisticated observations are probably using sophisticated software which you should be able to mod with a way to digitally filter out satellites. You can predict their path and their magnitude, or have the telescope do it for you, and then screen it if possible or just remove that second from the data if it's too bright and overloads the sensitivity threshold. I'd be surprised if technology like this doesn't exist already.

//no, I didn't read Yahoo


To GREATLY simplify it- Filtering out noise like satellites requires taking multiple pictures and averaging them together, taking the pixels that appear in most of the photos and excluding the pixels that only show up occasionally. The problem with that is a lot of astronomy is looking for those odd, occasional differences from one photo to the next.
 
2020-08-08 10:39:53 AM  
4 votes:

way south: MurphyMurphy: way south: MurphyMurphy: I find it hilarious we're going to destroy the night sky

Because that's EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH  than fixing our stagnate and corrupt cable/telecom fiefdoms.

Light pollution has already destroyed the night sky for the vast majority of the population.
Unfortunately they don't care about seeing stars so much as they care about seeing the freeway they're driving on.

Even if we solved the telecom problem and allowed people to build towers and run cables anywhere (destroying the landscape in the process), there are many places you can't easily reach with a landline.
Where I live it's an archipelago of small islands and tiny populations.  Even if we wanted to run the cables it would mean digging miles of trenches and dropping cables all over the sea for a few thousand people living here or there. It's not really practical and we sure as hell cant afford it.

Satellite bypasses that problem entirely. It comes with the risk of polluting orbit but we were already willing to run bulldozers all over the place for data.

Digging a trench and running a cable is nothing. I know a thing or two about transport.

Yeah, its hard. So is providing electricity. Natural gas. But it's an easy task for a civilization such as ours.

And for areas more remote than that? Existing higher orbit sats work. Have a good friend that's used one as his only solution for decades. He torrents, uses steam. Not perfect but he's the one that wants to be separated from civilization.

Billions. Enough to run the cables many times over, are vacuumed up by the investor class. Fueled by grants from your tax dollars, insulated by politics.

I don't see any wisdom in calling the night sky lost. Nor in "hurr all telescopes just go to moon duh"

You've been screwed so long, when thinking how to fix your problem, you dont even consider the possibility of one pen stroke vs launching thousands of satellites.

I'm not saying the sky is lost. I'm saying we are willing to trade som ...


Yay, Broadband to the loonies, i mean, boonies.
Their facebook and netflix will stream faster!

I guess we'll just have to thoroughly disagree on the cost/benefit ratio here.

I think it's utter madness to compare low orbit sats the equivalent of someone using a solar panel.
And think the same about comparing the launching thousands of satellites vs making people/orgs share lines and bandwidth on the terrestrial solutions we have perfected over many generations.
 
2020-08-08 8:04:38 AM  
4 votes:
Really, we should just be doing astronomy from the Moon. Moon. astronomers. That's a nice big arrays plopped up there.

No whalers allowed.
 
2020-08-08 12:26:27 PM  
3 votes:

Benjimin_Dover: blot out faint astronomical objects, and even hinder searches for killer asteroids.


Nothing lost since knowing there is a killer asteroid is worthless information. There's nothing that you can do about them.  It's not like the Earth has a steering wheel that somebody can jerk to avoid one.


That is literally the line of thinking that farked over the US on Covid.
 
2020-08-08 12:26:14 PM  
3 votes:

New Farkin User Name: I'm still not sure why this impacts astronomers that much? Amateurs aren't doing very sensitive observations where a bright object passing between them and their target will ruin everything; for stuff like asteroid observations I don't think it'd matter at all. And professions who are doing sophisticated observations are probably using sophisticated software which you should be able to mod with a way to digitally filter out satellites. You can predict their path and their magnitude, or have the telescope do it for you, and then screen it if possible or just remove that second from the data if it's too bright and overloads the sensitivity threshold. I'd be surprised if technology like this doesn't exist already.

//no, I didn't read Yahoo


You can't just filter out missing data, starlink trajectories are not predictable, and the ultimate goal is to have tens of thousands of these kinds of satellites in orbit in order to provide the necessary coverage. Musk was boasting just the other day that he hasnt met anyone who knows where all the Starlinks are, which is a big part of the problem.
 
2020-08-08 11:50:27 AM  
3 votes:

Destructor: pup.socket: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

Building and operating a telescope in space is enormously expensive. Is Musk going to foot the bill? Nope, like every other PoS "capitalist", he's happy to free ride on a public resource as long as the government that is in his pocket lets him to, but he'll oppose paying the true cost of his "enterprise" with all the money he can spare.

Maybe he will with his vast fortune of Mars rubies.

Also, why are Space Telescopes so expensive. I mean, it's just a system of lenses and mirrors, a guidance system, some sort of station keeping system, and that's pretty much it. Stop thinking "NASA" where every gyroscope needs parts from the 50 states for political reasons. And start thinking "SpaceX".

/Long live Musk!


Because they're farking huge and it's exorbitantly expensive to launch huge things.
 
2020-08-09 7:36:10 AM  
2 votes:

Bennie Crabtree: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

Fark that. That's holding taxpayers hostage. Fark that.

And fark that solution for pricing ordinary people out of astronomy.


Starlink promises a societal solution to a growing problem of internet censorship. That's its value. If that means my long term exposure will require some crop outs until humanity grows the fark up, so be it.
 
2020-08-08 10:51:28 PM  
2 votes:
way south:
/this article pops up every starlink launch.
/problems overblown, most amateur astronomers don't have equipment sensitive enough to be affected.


Below is a picture taken with a dslr camera.  The starlinks barely affected anything at all.

Fark user imageView Full Size

Yes, they can affect even the most basic equipment.
 
2020-08-08 5:51:44 PM  
2 votes:
Long exposures are being farked up by objects flying through the field of view? This would be a real problem if photographic film was being used to capture these long exposure images, but if you are not from the stone age you are capturing your images digitally and this can be dealt with a bit of ingenuity. Instead of updating the same image with new data continuously you need to collect your data as a series of images so you can toss out or crop any with artifacts before summing them all together to create the final image showing the faint object you targeted. Quit biatching about it write it up as your Phd project already.
 
2020-08-08 5:11:49 PM  
2 votes:

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


Fark that. That's holding taxpayers hostage. Fark that.

And fark that solution for pricing ordinary people out of astronomy.
 
2020-08-08 3:05:02 PM  
2 votes:

falkone32: starlink trajectories are not predictable


What makes their orbits less predictable than other orbits?
 
2020-08-08 12:28:19 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: meanmutton: Starlink isn't going to "bring broadband to all the boonies at once"

More than 90% of Starlink's coverage is over what I would classify as "boonies".  Above and below 60 degrees is largely tundra, not boonies.  So it technically leaves a sliver of boonies uncovered.


At their limit when complete, they only have capacity for a few million subscribers. The vast majority of people won't be able to subscribe to their network.
 
2020-08-08 12:14:49 PM  
2 votes:

farkeruk: Destructor: Also, why are Space Telescopes so expensive. I mean, it's just a system of lenses and mirrors, a guidance system, some sort of station keeping system, and that's pretty much it. Stop thinking "NASA" where every gyroscope needs parts from the 50 states for political reasons. And start thinking "SpaceX".

Also, NASA using the Shuttle, which requires a farking expensive manned space launch.

SpaceX are at around $50K/kilo now. I reckon you could get one into space with crowdfunding/corporate donations and so forth.


You think crowdfunding and corporate donations will get you to $150 billion dollars to put a single 3,000 tonne telescope into space?
 
2020-08-08 12:13:13 PM  
2 votes:

RedVentrue: way south: GoldSpider: A LOT of science is done by amateur astronomers, and they sure as shiat aren't going to just put telescopes into space.

When starship was pitched I recall they said the individual ride rice per starlink satellite could be as low as $4000.
Through the magic of ride share, mass production, and knowing A guy who owns a rocket factory and also owes you a favor, You very possibly can...

[Fark user image image 850x508]


/this article pops up every starlink launch.
/problems overblown, most amateur astronomers don't have equipment sensitive enough to be affected.

He's also going to be painting them matte black. Doesn't help with the shiny ones already in place though.


Starlink satellites will have a relatively short lifespan (a few years) and will need to be replaced regularly, so this is not a huge concern. The ones in orbit now are basically prototypes and the Starlink design will keep changing as the program progresses and the requirements for the satellites become more clear.
 
2020-08-08 11:51:37 AM  
2 votes:

WhackingDay: I'm sure they'll figure out a solution. I hear they're pretty smart.


Their solution is "fark you, got mine."
 
2020-08-08 10:49:58 AM  
2 votes:

farkeruk: Destructor: Also, why are Space Telescopes so expensive. I mean, it's just a system of lenses and mirrors, a guidance system, some sort of station keeping system, and that's pretty much it. Stop thinking "NASA" where every gyroscope needs parts from the 50 states for political reasons. And start thinking "SpaceX".

Also, NASA using the Shuttle, which requires a farking expensive manned space launch.

SpaceX are at around $50K/kilo now. I reckon you could get one into space with crowdfunding/corporate donations and so forth.


I want a ton of them. There are a lot of objects in the sky that it's in our interest to keep an eye on.

If Musk could take his satellite stacking tech into the arena of telescopes, you could get a dozen or so up on one flight. And yes, in the world of "light buckets", bigger is usually better, but, factor in what an atmosphere-less viewing environment could be like.

I get it, Earth based observation is a really cool hobby. But, we need to put telescopes where they belong: Space.
 
2020-08-08 10:29:28 AM  
2 votes:

MurphyMurphy: way south: MurphyMurphy: I find it hilarious we're going to destroy the night sky

Because that's EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH  than fixing our stagnate and corrupt cable/telecom fiefdoms.

Light pollution has already destroyed the night sky for the vast majority of the population.
Unfortunately they don't care about seeing stars so much as they care about seeing the freeway they're driving on.

Even if we solved the telecom problem and allowed people to build towers and run cables anywhere (destroying the landscape in the process), there are many places you can't easily reach with a landline.
Where I live it's an archipelago of small islands and tiny populations.  Even if we wanted to run the cables it would mean digging miles of trenches and dropping cables all over the sea for a few thousand people living here or there. It's not really practical and we sure as hell cant afford it.

Satellite bypasses that problem entirely. It comes with the risk of polluting orbit but we were already willing to run bulldozers all over the place for data.

Digging a trench and running a cable is nothing. I know a thing or two about transport.

Yeah, its hard. So is providing electricity. Natural gas. But it's an easy task for a civilization such as ours.

And for areas more remote than that? Existing higher orbit sats work. Have a good friend that's used one as his only solution for decades. He torrents, uses steam. Not perfect but he's the one that wants to be separated from civilization.

Billions. Enough to run the cables many times over, are vacuumed up by the investor class. Fueled by grants from your tax dollars, insulated by politics.

I don't see any wisdom in calling the night sky lost. Nor in "hurr all telescopes just go to moon duh"

You've been screwed so long, when thinking how to fix your problem, you dont even consider the possibility of one pen stroke vs launching thousands of satellites.


I'm not saying the sky is lost. I'm saying we are willing to trade some natural beauty for the advantages of modern civilization. Everything we do has an impact and we have to weigh each case differently.
Now there are cases where you can avoid running a power line because the customer uses solar. No different than using satellite data, if that works for you. One less bulldozer paving a path for surface infrastructure.  One less telephone pole to snap in a hurricane.

Higher orbit satellites tended to come with higher latency and prices tho. Bringing a faster and better service to the mass market means less surface networking needed. If it's affordable and convenient then one expensive satellite network covers billions of use cases.
That will even out the price, and the national advantages are palpable when we can finally bring broadband to all of the boonies at once.
 
2020-08-08 10:05:56 AM  
2 votes:

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


As Webb taught us, that's easy!
 
2020-08-08 10:02:46 AM  
2 votes:
You'll get over it.
 
2020-08-08 9:20:53 AM  
2 votes:
There is only one answer:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-08 9:18:22 AM  
2 votes:

pup.socket: way south: most amateur astronomers don't have equipment sensitive enough to be affected.

If you can see the satellites with an unaided eye, every astronomical instrument will be affected.


Lots of satellites can be seen with the naked eye, they aren't a problem for amateurs.
In the orbit raising position after launch the starlink's tend to be around magnitude 5, which is on the cusp of visibility.   In their final orbit and with the new sunshade they're going to be much dimmer. They're expected to be well below 6.

There's a reason these articles repeat right after the launch. They're easiest to see when traveling in a flock at sunrise/sunset.

/The Neowise photo doing the rounds on social media was a composite shot intended to highlight the problem.
/Most people were able to get photos without satellite streaks because they were trying to capture the comet.
 
2020-08-08 7:45:45 AM  
2 votes:

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


And he'll probably be happy to do it.  Plenty of seasoned boosters in inventory and it's good PR for the cost of a second stage and fairings.
 
2020-08-09 1:26:33 AM  
1 vote:

meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: meanmutton: Starlink isn't going to "bring broadband to all the boonies at once"

More than 90% of Starlink's coverage is over what I would classify as "boonies".  Above and below 60 degrees is largely tundra, not boonies.  So it technically leaves a sliver of boonies uncovered.

At their limit when complete, they only have capacity for a few million subscribers. The vast majority of people won't be able to subscribe to their network.


That's not even close to true.

The beta only has capacity for a few million subscribers.

The full 2-constellation network will be able to handle billions.
 
2020-08-08 7:53:49 PM  
1 vote:

maxheck: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.
Or a few 55-gallon drums full of sand and a stick of dynamite launched into the right orbital plane.


Wait--so how much would something like that cost, anyway? Just hypothetically.
 
2020-08-08 6:07:42 PM  
1 vote:

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On one hand, ground based astronomy is doomed and space telescopes become increasingly important.

On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.


Or a few 55-gallon drums full of sand and a stick of dynamite launched into the right orbital plane.
 
2020-08-08 5:35:31 PM  
1 vote:
On one hand, ground based astronomy is doomed and space telescopes become increasingly important.

On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.
 
2020-08-08 5:17:14 PM  
1 vote:

pehvbot: johnny_vegas: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

As Webb taught us, that's easy!

You are looking at this the wrong way. Instead of one colossal telescope we can have 10,000 small ones.  Throw in accurate positioning and some clever software and we can do wonders.

A system like that would need  amateurs doing much of the actual observation just because of the shear volume of data.


A lot of these massive telescopes are exactly that, anyway; a ton of smaller telescopes, generating collated data.  The image that they created recently, of the black hole at the center of M87, was using a "telescope" the width of the Earth; the Event Horizon Telescope, by hooking together data from radio telescopes around the globe.

We can, in theory, do the same thing in space, and get an even wider scope, with less atmospheric interference for those wavelengths that the atmosphere blocks.
 
2020-08-08 12:38:24 PM  
1 vote:

meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: meanmutton: Starlink isn't going to "bring broadband to all the boonies at once"

More than 90% of Starlink's coverage is over what I would classify as "boonies".  Above and below 60 degrees is largely tundra, not boonies.  So it technically leaves a sliver of boonies uncovered.

At their limit when complete, they only have capacity for a few million subscribers. The vast majority of people won't be able to subscribe to their network.


Amazon is getting into the game too, along with God knows who else.  And they'll be building out "on the ground" infrastructure as well.  I wouldn't imagine their ambitions stop at the ionosphere.
 
2020-08-08 12:13:07 PM  
1 vote:

RedVentrue: He's also going to be painting them matte black. Doesn't help with the shiny ones already in place though.


Supposedly they've already started doing that, to little effect.  I'm not 100% sure about that tho.
 
2020-08-08 12:03:02 PM  
1 vote:

way south: MurphyMurphy: way south: MurphyMurphy: I find it hilarious we're going to destroy the night sky

Because that's EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH  than fixing our stagnate and corrupt cable/telecom fiefdoms.

Light pollution has already destroyed the night sky for the vast majority of the population.
Unfortunately they don't care about seeing stars so much as they care about seeing the freeway they're driving on.

Even if we solved the telecom problem and allowed people to build towers and run cables anywhere (destroying the landscape in the process), there are many places you can't easily reach with a landline.
Where I live it's an archipelago of small islands and tiny populations.  Even if we wanted to run the cables it would mean digging miles of trenches and dropping cables all over the sea for a few thousand people living here or there. It's not really practical and we sure as hell cant afford it.

Satellite bypasses that problem entirely. It comes with the risk of polluting orbit but we were already willing to run bulldozers all over the place for data.

Digging a trench and running a cable is nothing. I know a thing or two about transport.

Yeah, its hard. So is providing electricity. Natural gas. But it's an easy task for a civilization such as ours.

And for areas more remote than that? Existing higher orbit sats work. Have a good friend that's used one as his only solution for decades. He torrents, uses steam. Not perfect but he's the one that wants to be separated from civilization.

Billions. Enough to run the cables many times over, are vacuumed up by the investor class. Fueled by grants from your tax dollars, insulated by politics.

I don't see any wisdom in calling the night sky lost. Nor in "hurr all telescopes just go to moon duh"

You've been screwed so long, when thinking how to fix your problem, you dont even consider the possibility of one pen stroke vs launching thousands of satellites.

I'm not saying the sky is lost. I'm saying we are willing to trade some natural beauty for the advantages of modern civilization. Everything we do has an impact and we have to weigh each case differently.
Now there are cases where you can avoid running a power line because the customer uses solar. No different than using satellite data, if that works for you. One less bulldozer paving a path for surface infrastructure.  One less telephone pole to snap in a hurricane.

Higher orbit satellites tended to come with higher latency and prices tho. Bringing a faster and better service to the mass market means less surface networking needed. If it's affordable and convenient then one expensive satellite network covers billions of use cases.
That will even out the price, and the national advantages are palpable when we can finally bring broadband to all of the boonies at once.


Starlink isn't going to "bring broadband to all the boonies at once". It will bring broadband to a few million people across the world.
 
2020-08-08 11:23:12 AM  
1 vote:

MurphyMurphy: way south: MurphyMurphy: way south: MurphyMurphy: I find it hilarious we're going to destroy the night sky

Because that's EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH  than fixing our stagnate and corrupt cable/telecom fiefdoms.

Light pollution has already destroyed the night sky for the vast majority of the population.
Unfortunately they don't care about seeing stars so much as they care about seeing the freeway they're driving on.

Even if we solved the telecom problem and allowed people to build towers and run cables anywhere (destroying the landscape in the process), there are many places you can't easily reach with a landline.
Where I live it's an archipelago of small islands and tiny populations.  Even if we wanted to run the cables it would mean digging miles of trenches and dropping cables all over the sea for a few thousand people living here or there. It's not really practical and we sure as hell cant afford it.

Satellite bypasses that problem entirely. It comes with the risk of polluting orbit but we were already willing to run bulldozers all over the place for data.

Digging a trench and running a cable is nothing. I know a thing or two about transport.

Yeah, its hard. So is providing electricity. Natural gas. But it's an easy task for a civilization such as ours.

And for areas more remote than that? Existing higher orbit sats work. Have a good friend that's used one as his only solution for decades. He torrents, uses steam. Not perfect but he's the one that wants to be separated from civilization.

Billions. Enough to run the cables many times over, are vacuumed up by the investor class. Fueled by grants from your tax dollars, insulated by politics.

I don't see any wisdom in calling the night sky lost. Nor in "hurr all telescopes just go to moon duh"

You've been screwed so long, when thinking how to fix your problem, you dont even consider the possibility of one pen stroke vs launching thousands of satellites.

I'm not saying the sky is lost. I'm saying we are willing t ...


I'm gonna compare it to solar because we've already started doing experiments in space solar power. I can see a near future where we start talking about wrapping the planet in dyson dots to do some very large scale work. Work that no longer requires ripping up the lanscape.

On one hand we're weighting the ability to control the climate and bring unlimited power and data to every human on earth, regardless of where they live or which tribe they belong to. On the other we're talking about a specific level of hobby level astronomy that rises above back yard stuff yet still can't afford the workarounds needed to peer through satellite constellations.

It's predictable which argument will lose if push comes to shove. It would make more sense to give each hobbyist their own personal Hubble than to stand in the way of that.
If launch costs are falling, which they will need to do in order to loft these constellations, then increasingly large space telescopes are not out of the question. Spacex and other launch companies are more prone to pay it back than way than to put off plans for massively profitable global progress.
 
2020-08-08 11:21:21 AM  
1 vote:
A thousand other countries and companies will doing the exact same shiat in 5 years.
 
2020-08-08 10:10:28 AM  
1 vote:

pup.socket: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

Building and operating a telescope in space is enormously expensive. Is Musk going to foot the bill? Nope, like every other PoS "capitalist", he's happy to free ride on a public resource as long as the government that is in his pocket lets him to, but he'll oppose paying the true cost of his "enterprise" with all the money he can spare.


Maybe he will with his vast fortune of Mars rubies.

Also, why are Space Telescopes so expensive. I mean, it's just a system of lenses and mirrors, a guidance system, some sort of station keeping system, and that's pretty much it. Stop thinking "NASA" where every gyroscope needs parts from the 50 states for political reasons. And start thinking "SpaceX".

/Long live Musk!
 
2020-08-08 9:28:53 AM  
1 vote:

LordJiro: What, letting a billionaire do whatever stupid idea he pays his engineers to come up with, with no oversight, might have negative consequences? Who saw that coming?

Next you'll be telling me that a guy who bought his way into every 'success' he's ever had ISN'T some kind of bootstrappy genius, or that the fact that his businesses have taken billions upon billions of dollars in government handouts DOESN'T make him look like a massive, out-of-touch hypocrite when he rails against 'socialism'.


Uh...Henry Ford? John D Rockefeller? Andrew Carnegie? That Mercer asshole? Those Koch's? What's the right answer?
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.