this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
718 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

59243 readers
3437 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Scientists, looking deep into space, have long voiced their concerns that satellites are encroaching on their ability to study the cosmos.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 158 points 1 year ago (13 children)

On Reddit I remember getting called a "space Karen" for pointing this out in a discussion about Starlink. Elon Musk fanboys are some of the worst. Second only to Q fanboys.

[–] Trevader24135@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Well the issue is that not everything is black and white.

On one hand, these satellites can potentially absolutely wreak havok on astronomy, and our own view of the night sky. Nobody wants that.

On the other hand, in a few years, these satellites are able to provide cheap internet all over the planet, which would allow poor remote communities in South America, Africa, and Asia access to the internet, which is practically impossible through any other means. IMO, its worth the tradeoff. I think helping people is more important than astronomy, but I recognize that that's just my opinion

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 59 points 1 year ago (1 children)

poor remote communities in South America

Ironically, starlink was used by illegal miners on the Amazon to coordinate operations and avoid policing.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/16/americas/spacex-starlink-amazon-brazil-mining-intl-latam/index.html

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Yes the internet is indeed useful to have

[–] smokeythebear@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (18 children)

Okay but you're falling into Elon's trap. You can't weigh future potential against current harm naively. Particularly when it comes from somebody with a long history of over promising and under delivering. Since we pay the full price up front (loss of science, etc) but will never reap the full benefits promised.

[–] ThoughtGoblin@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For instance: it could help remote villages or third world countries. But Starlink costs a pretty penny in western money those places lack. Otherwise they would already have traditional infrastructure.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago

Isn't Starlink still heavily limited by the geography you are in. As in there cannot be too many subscribers in any one place because it will use all the capacity? If that's still the case seems doubtful it will ever bring anything cheap to the masses.

[–] eleitl@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 year ago

At least SpaceX restarted the cheap launch race and is giving us the option of heavy but affordable payloads for scientific instruments.

LEO junk will only get worse with time, so let's start planning for it.

[–] LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

which would allow poor remote communities in South America, Africa, and Asia access to the internet, which is practically impossible through any other means.

"Practically impossible" is a horrible way to describe it. It's not practically impossible; the solution and methods are eminently doable, they just aren't done (yet) because of cost in poor areas with relatively weak governments. Most of those areas will get reliable non-satellite internet in the years to come.

We can talk up the good of systems like Starlink without hyping it up as delivering something that is otherwise impossible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] qisope@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

all these comments discussing ukraine wartime internet, or poorer communities in south america. meanwhile, i have zero interest in musk, but starlink has been a fantastic Internet option for me in rural US.

my other options are borderline unusable DSL, or a couple of line-of-sight wireless providers which would require cutting down who knows how many trees to even have a hope of connectivity.

there are a significant number of people living in this area, but no decent wired or cellular internet options and despite my state getting a large federal grant to improve internet speeds, I have zero expectation it will be improved for me.

[–] emehlya@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Same here, we're not rural enough to get grant money but not suburban enough to get cable. And everybody who says Hughesnet is fine has definitely never used it. I could never have worked from home through the pandemic if we hadn't gotten starlink.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I strongly dislike Elon Musk but Starlink is a net win, and science can and must evolve to overcome these sorts of challenges. Nearby space is only going to get more crowded

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Fanboys for anyone are the worst.

We as fucking adults should be able to criticize anything and anyone we believe in. Especially if you believe in them.

That’s called security in your beliefs, go figure that our chronically insecure populace would refuse to question their beliefs

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Odusei@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Funny, “Space Karen” is a really common name for Elon.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 59 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, and if we did not abandon our traditional networks then there would not be such a strong market for STARMLINK.

[–] Randy_Bobandy@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Sounds to me like it's about time we build an observatory on the moon.

[–] Gutless2615@ttrpg.network 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I hear you, but let me propose: prison on the moon, and we send Elon there.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Veltoss@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I do wonder how much the average people commenting would care if musk had nothing to do with this.

It's an issue, but it's an issue scientists knew was coming for decades now. Starlink isn't the only company putting satellites into low earth orbit. They aren't the first and the amount of them will just keep coming.

What we need is regulations and requirements for how many, what purpose, how they'll be dealt with if something goes wrong and when they're no longer needed, etc. Getting people to share satellites that are already there (when possible) and not putting up satellites that are redundant or don't provide that much benefit versus non-satellite options or further orbit options will be important.

But all these mindless circlejerkers only talking about musk and wanting starlink "taken down" are really polluting the topic with meaningless bullshit. It's unfortunate people are bringing these mindless circlejerks over from reddit.

[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

LEO shouldn't be some billionaire playground to make even more money. The Kessler syndrome is a very real threat to our future

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The actual sane take. I swear musk is constantly living rent free in way too many peoples minds.

Honestly, what I took from this is we should have more telescopes that operate outside of the orbits of commercial satellites.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ulu_mulu@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree, if it wasn't Musk there wouldn't be so much hate most probably, starlink is objectively good for all the people living in rural zones (in some cases just outside of big cities) where internet doesn't arrive because other companies don't want to spend the money for it.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's plenty of companies that do rural internet. They're called WISPs (wireless ISPs). Usually small business owners willing to get more customers.

We would give free internet to more than a few farmers willing to let us mount on a silo or elevator. We put up a backhaul, access point, and give them a connection. Free internet for the land owner, we expand our territory, win/win. Then the neighbors just point a link at the AP and we charge them.

Only real requirement is line-of-sight. Towers can reach far. Existing structures usually work, otherwise they can sometimes erect a small tower.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Branny@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  • Send 40k satellites to pollute low-earth orbit (and provide internet)

  • Develop rockets that would more affordably send payload above LEO

  • Push scientists to get funding and launch more telescopes above LEO

  • Profit.

Talk about demand generation…

[–] Psiczar@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

LEO isn’t a marketing ploy, it reduces the latency inherent to traditional satellite technology which is in a much higher orbit. Starlink has taken off because it provides a much better user experience compared to the old school satellite options.

It sucks for astronomers but given governments and other companies are following their example, nobody is putting this genie back in the bottle.

[–] JATtho@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Based on the article the satellites are not staying 100% on their intended spectrum spec and are bleeding some unintended interfere noise. I hope the starlink cloud doesn't interfere so much that it excludes possibility of some research. On earth, if you transmit even slightly out-of-spec radio signals, the government agencies will get mad and really really fast.

ELI5: Low earth orbit is becoming over crowed "FM radio station", with regulation lacking who can broadcast and at what frequency.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Magiwarriorx@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Interesting. I remember there was a brightness concern with the satellites reflecting too much light, but assumed it was all ok because IIRC they hit their reflectivity reduction targets.

However, this seems to be about transmissions from the satellites interfering with non-visible observations.

In a study, published in the Astronomy & Astrophysics journal, scientists used a powerful telescope in the Netherlands to observe 68 of SpaceX's satellites and detected emissions from satellites are drifting out of their allocated band, up in space.

... "Why this matters is because of the number," Dr Di Vruno said. "Suppose that there is a satellite in space that radiates this kind of signal, there is a very, very small chance that this satellite will be in the beam, in the main site, of your telescope."

[–] overzeetop@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

drifting out of their allocated band

That sounds like a violation of regulatory authorization. Tell his ass to fix it or shut it down. If he can’t, revoke StarLink’s status as a US corporation.

[–] joolez@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Imagine you are working your entire life in science. To find were we are coming from - were we are going to - spending millions of dollars for the most sophisticated Instruments.

And then some random moron with too much money appears and moons you every few minutes.

[–] CaptObvious@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

It'll be interesting when some untouchable actor decides enough is enough and starts deorbiting them.

[–] nednobbins@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

This has been going on for much longer than Starlink.

There were a number of observatories built in or near cities. They became mostly useless once we figured out electric lights but we still use them for education sometimes.

SpaceX has been working with the NSF so they can continue to dim Starlink https://spacenews.com/nsf-and-spacex-reach-agreement-to-reduce-starlink-effects-on-astronomy/

Now we're putting more and more observation capabilities deep into space. JWT is already getting images better than anything you could get on earth, even if you eliminated Starlink and turned off every light on the planet. Ground based astronomical observation is still relevant but we keep coming up with better alternatives.

[–] pozbo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Muskrat furiously making alts to downvote.

I heard he'll be done in just 2 years!

[–] Ryan213@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

"No, it's not." - Elon, probably

[–] hydro033@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

ELI5 - why do satellites need to be bright? Do they have some kind of lights? Can't they just be dark and beam internet around?

[–] Phlogiston@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They're metal things sitting up there where the sunlight hits them. What you're seeing is the sun reflecting off them. Its like how you can look up and see a plane all bright and in the sun even at dusk when its starting to get dark on the ground.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rmuk@feddit.uk 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They don't have lights, but they reflect light from the sun at certain times of day. Another way to think about it: these satellite can be experiencing broad daylight hours after the sun has set at the surface. Similarly, when you're seeing the Moon at night what you're actually seeing is daytime on the Moon and it's often enough to light up the landscape around you because you're looking at an object that is experiencing daytime while you aren't.

The question then becomes: can't the satellite be made darker? And the answer is they are already pretty dark. The moon, for example, has an Albedo (measure of reflectiveness) of 0.15, which is similar to asphalt and it can still dominate a night sky. SpaceX satellites have an Albedo of about 0.11, so astronomers are essentially having to deal with thousands of tiny and unpredictable Moons drifting across the sky. I can't find the article now, but I recall reading that the albedo would need to get down to 0.002 to become negligible; I just don't see that happening.

load more comments (1 replies)

I think this was on my bingo card

load more comments
view more: next ›