62 replies to this topic

[RichA]

https://phys.org/new...satellites.html

 

 

[Dobs O Fun]

There's this other news article I found.

Researchers call for the FCC to pause launches


https://abcnews.go.c...ry?id=115276437

I don't know how much traction it has, it may not go anywhere either.

[ForgotMeHuh]

And their newer version satellites are 32 times worse, threatening the usefulness of all radio astronomy installations on Earth:

 

https://www.astron.n...ink-satellites/

 

Can we really allow one man to invalidate the billions being spent to develop facilities worldwide?

[deSitter]

And their newer version satellites are 32 times worse, threatening the usefulness of all radio astronomy installations on Earth:

 

https://www.astron.n...ink-satellites/

 

Can we really allow one man to invalidate the billions being spent to develop facilities worldwide?

He must be stopped.

 

-drl

[ayadai]

He must be stopped.

 

-drl

Agreed, but I see him as the symptom, rather than the disease.

[deSitter]

Agreed, but I see him as the symptom, rather than the disease.

Probably. The thing is, no one needs or wants Starlink. It's junk. The military like to play around with tech. In a real war, it would be the last thing you'd use for secure comm, for the latency if for no other reason, of which there are many. There are far better and more secure ways to deliver internet to remote places. The entire thing, like Musk's other idiotic space ideas, is pointless. And this time there is real damage, not to mention the very real threat of Kessler's syndrome. Just astoundingly stupid.

 

-drl

[licho52]

Probably. The thing is, no one needs or wants Starlink. It's junk. The military like to play around with tech. In a real war, it would be the last thing you'd use for secure comm, for the latency if for no other reason, of which there are many. There are far better and more secure ways to deliver internet to remote places. The entire thing, like Musk's other idiotic space ideas, is pointless. And this time there is real damage, not to mention the very real threat of Kessler's syndrome. Just astoundingly stupid.

 

-drl

The public is all for it and he's about to have enormous political influence. So that train has left the station and there's nothing an angry letter from scientists can do.

[DVexile]

 In a real war, it would be the last thing you'd use for secure comm, for the latency if for no other reason, of which there are many. 

I don’t like Musk, or a sky full of satellites, but the above statement is wrong.  Especially the latency comment.  

 

Proliferated LEO constellations are the only thing that will last through the opening of a near-peer conflict.  Their latency is significantly less than GEO (around 100ms compared to 600ms, it is simple geometry).  They are much harder to jam than GEO.  They are much harder to intercept than GEO and ground terminals are much harder to geolocate than for GEO.  That is why the military is investing in proliferated LEO constellations, because they are acutely aware that their other comms are extremely vulnerable at this point.

 

All that said, at present and likely for the future, dedicated military proliferated LEO constellations are much smaller than commercial constellations.  A few hundred compared to many thousands.  

 

And I agree for commercial users these giant constellations are largely unnecessary.  In fact, if the US specifically had done even the absolute minimum to fund and encourage terrestrial rural internet access there probably would have been no commercially viable way to bootstrap these LEO internet constellations.

[Forward Scatter]

Ruination of the night sky is a worthy sacrifice so long that a few billionaires make even more billions off the commons.

[Ron359]

I don’t like Musk, or a sky full of satellites, but the above statement is wrong.  Especially the latency comment.  

 

Proliferated LEO constellations are the only thing that will last through the opening of a near-peer conflict.  Their latency is significantly less than GEO (around 100ms compared to 600ms, it is simple geometry).  They are much harder to jam than GEO.  They are much harder to intercept than GEO and ground terminals are much harder to geolocate than for GEO.  That is why the military is investing in proliferated LEO constellations, because they are acutely aware that their other comms are extremely vulnerable at this point.

 

All that said, at present and likely for the future, dedicated military proliferated LEO constellations are much smaller than commercial constellations.  A few hundred compared to many thousands.  

 

And I agree for commercial users these giant constellations are largely unnecessary.  In fact, if the US specifically had done even the absolute minimum to fund and encourage terrestrial rural internet access there probably would have been no commercially viable way to bootstrap these LEO internet constellations.

The U.S. Navy re-started teaching navigation with sextants and celestial navigation methods several years ago.  That should tell you they know where  the risks are.  

Edited by Ron359, 31 October 2024 - 11:33 AM.

[Fabricius]

Can we really allow one man to invalidate the billions being spent to develop facilities worldwide?

"We"?

That man did not ask anyone's permission, except (maybe) the FCC. The FCC represents less than 5% of the world population. 
 

[Jhunt]

I disagree with the statement, "no one needs or wants Starlink. It's junk." I have co-workers that wouldn't have useable service because the ISP doesn't want to invest in developing faster speeds out where they live. There are people that wouldn't have internet at all if it wasn't for Starlink. 

[aatt]

A few people not having internet versus no one having decent dark skies……Cats playing piano versus worldwide desecration of the night sky and radio astronomy becoming null and void does not seem reasonable or a fair trade off. Just saying….

[Dobs O Fun]

Communications is a life line.

Not just ordering pizzas and cat videos. That comment here on CN is overplayed. Maybe that's how we see it but there are many affected by not being connected.

Starlink is used in rural areas to aid schools not connected by any means or by being connected by the old, slow land line. Hospitals in same area need crucial connections that can't be served by wire. Professionals who work in various parts of the country and travel to other areas need connection. Same with retired folks in RVs, OTR truckers, ships at sea. As the same as a commodity that generates revenue it also has become like a public service.

Its a connectivity issue being solved creating a newer problem. Automobiles solved the time in travel problem while creating a problem of pollution. Pollution via auto has been and is constantly being dealt with and so far it has achieved positive results while the auto population increased!

If anyone thinks that connectivity is not an issue outside thier own living area they need to look a bit farther than thier own backyard. I'm having a difficult time discerning if people hate Musk because of Starlink or they just dislike him period.

Either way its not solving the LP issue.

We need both the connectivity and darker skies, so what's the solution? Can we get past the defeatist attitude and get something done?

More research is on the way on the total pollution of these satellites. This research needs to be digested and given to the right people to make the right choices. Whether to shuttle the program or develop less polluting satellites this is going to take time.

[Jhunt]

A few people not having internet versus no one having decent dark skies……Cats playing piano versus worldwide desecration of the night sky and radio astronomy becoming null and void does not seem reasonable or a fair trade off. Just saying….

 

Few people? There are 2.7 million starlink users around the world. 

 

Being connected to the internet is ever more important than ever. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not treated as a utility in the future. 

 

There's a reason some governments don't want their people to have access to it. Freedom of information. It's a lot harder to censor when you don't control the data flow. 

 

Should there be balance? Yes of course. Everyone should be able to enjoy the night sky. 

[Freezout]

There probably wouldn’t be 32000 of these needed if everybody including the 2.7M users and all the rest wouldn’t feel necessary to have the cats videos in ultra fast speed and recording every moment of their life.

[Ron359]

I disagree with the statement, "no one needs or wants Starlink. It's junk."There are people that wouldn't have internet at all if it wasn't for Starlink. 

Like the Russian Red Army for example:  

 

 https://www.reuters....ays-2024-02-15/

[Max Headroom]

Lot's of hate for Musk.  Interesting. 
I don't find his satellite project all that troubling.  Other than the sat trains that happen right after a launch, I see no difference in the night sky that I can attribute to Starlink.
I know lots of people that will never get the internet delivered by cables.  They live in areas that are too sparsely populated to make it economically viable to serve them.  Also over the road truck drivers, and the RV crowd seem to have a lot of Starlink users too.
I also don't see how it's anybodies business what other people are using the internet for.  If people want to pay money for the connection just to "watch cat videos," so what?
I suspect all the hate for Musk, especially in recent months has more to do with his politics and less to do with Starlink and SpaceX, and is just a form of stealth political bashing.

[RLK1]

Lot's of hate for Musk.  Interesting. 
I don't find his satellite project all that troubling.  Other than the sat trains that happen right after a launch, I see no difference in the night sky that I can attribute to Starlink.
I know lots of people that will never get the internet delivered by cables.  They live in areas that are too sparsely populated to make it economically viable to serve them.  Also over the road truck drivers, and the RV crowd seem to have a lot of Starlink users too.
I also don't see how it's anybodies business what other people are using the internet for.  If people want to pay money for the connection just to "watch cat videos," so what?
I suspect all the hate for Musk, especially in recent months has more to do with his politics and less to do with Starlink and SpaceX, and is just a form of stealth political bashing.

"I don't find his satellite project all that troubling."

 

It isn't just about you or whether or not the "RV crowd" should be entitled to have internet service whenever and wherever they want it but it's also about astronomical research and exploration that's at stake here.

 

The more these kinds of satellites go into orbit, particularly if they're not fitted with mitigation measures that starlink and others have reportedly promised in the past, the more likely it is that professional research such as with radio astronomy or in optical astronomy with the wide field surveys at the Vera Rubin observatory as an example, will be seriously compromised. 

And that's not politics, it's reality...

Edited by RLK1, 01 November 2024 - 01:25 PM.

[Freezout]

I also don't see how it's anybodies business what other people are using the internet for. If people want to pay money for the connection just to "watch cat videos," so what?
I suspect all the hate for Musk, especially in recent months has more to do with his politics and less to do with Starlink and SpaceX, and is just a form of stealth political bashing.

On the first point (use of internet): have money to use a service never entitles someone to pollute the environment at will.
On the second point: I understand what you mean but that won’t be my case. And I really like Musk on some other projects and ideas. One more reason to be disappointed by the Starlink stuff.

[Jhunt]

Like the Russian Red Army for example:  

 

 https://www.reuters....ays-2024-02-15/

The Red Army hasn't existed since 1946. Also, there's more people that aren't using them for war than those that are. So, the good outweighs the bad in this case. 

[ayadai]

I don't find his satellite project all that troubling.  Other than the sat trains that happen right after a launch, I see no difference in the night sky that I can attribute to Starlink.

 

YMMV

[aatt]

I am not a fan of Musk at all. That is not the reason I oppose starlink. As to it’s impacting the night sky, every time I observe I am getting many fold more satellite intrusions. All these launches impact the upper atmosphere, failure result in more hazards, billions of dollars of astronomical infrastructure is being compromised and possibly ruined and there are some unknowns as well. Mother Theresa could be launching these and I would still have a problem with it.

Edited by aatt, 01 November 2024 - 09:41 PM.

[Jhunt]

Well, nothing we can do about it now but hope they make them less reflective in the future. We can hate on Musk all we want but that isn't going to stop China and their plan to also send thousands of satellites up to compete. The CCP doesn't care. We see this in their 1st gen satellites that are extremely bright. They didn't attempt to lower the reflection. 

 

I bet India will be next in the future to launch their own version to compete. 

[Rickycardo]

We can rage all we want but we are a very tiny minority. The vast majority of people don't care about the night sky, 80% of humanity can't even see the Milky Way. What they do care about is connectivity and they will have it.We can't stop the rain but maybe we can help steer it by urging sat makers to work to reduce the affect they have on the night sky both from a pollution stance as well as to protect the science going on.

I'm personally torn between hating the concept of the satellites and wanting connectivity when I'm in the field. Starlink is better than other proposals being introduced. Once costs come down wait to see advertising up there.