• Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    7 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
    78
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 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
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 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
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 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

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        54 minutes 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

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    10 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
      8
      ·
      3 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
        7
        ·
        3 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
      21
      ·
      7 hours ago

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

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour 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.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    13 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
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 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
        16
        ·
        12 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
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            The geosynchronous satellites are about 650 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
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            12 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
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 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.

                • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 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
          5
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          10 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.

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 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
        12
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        10 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
          3
          ·
          10 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
            5 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
            2
            ·
            6 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
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            7 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.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 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
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          29 minutes 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
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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.

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      No it’s utterly pragmatic.

      The future of space exploration is in space.

  • linkshulkdoingit69@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

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

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    204
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    18 hours 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.

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 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.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 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
          6
          ·
          10 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
              ·
              10 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
                ·
                10 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
      ·
      16 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
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      12 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.

  • mvirts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours 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.

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

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

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    15 hours ago

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

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Don’t worry, greed ensures that Kessler Syndrome will get them in the not too distant future. Sure hope you aren’t reliant on GPS or other satellite services, but at least, for a shining moment, shareholders got some value. /s

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Starlink is a very low orbit. Even if something like that happened, it would clean itself up in like five years

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Sorry, you’re probably right. It’s a thing I expect to be problematic if the future. Of course all problems will burn up in the atmosphere…

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Not wrong, and yet small parts of that ‘orbit’ would kinetically increase, in a Kessler sort of way…

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        When 2 satellites collide, the pieces don’t all stay on the same altitude. Even though none of them will be in a stable orbit, all it takes is for one piece to smack into a satellite that’s a bit higher up before it de-orbits, and boom, now you’ve got a debris field that won’t de-orbit.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 hours ago

          Pieces don’t gain kinetic energy in a collision. Even if they collide and get sent off in an “upwards” direction, it’s not up very far relative to the orbit, and that’s just a less circular orbit at lower speed that will burn up even faster

          For you scenario to work, there would have to be a chain reaction

          • collision, sending a few pieces upwards
          • during that small number of orbits they survive, collision, sending a few pieces upward
          • repeat many times

          Each chance is remote enough, and ricocheting pieces only go so far, and any higher satellites they could reach are also low orbit, that I can’t imagine how remote the chances of this happening are

          Kessler syndrome is a real worry, but not in this low orbit

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

        The satellites are constantly giving themselves small boosts to maintain orbit and then are deorbited in 5 years when they run out of fuel. It should be well less than 5 years to resolve a LEO Kessler type situation from starlink.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      15 hours ago

      GPS/GLONASS/Galileo are at ~20,000km vs starlinks ~500km, all the LEO satellites would be fucked but global positioning would be fine. Sounds good to me.

      • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Wouldn’t interference from all the junk in between be at least somewhat of a problem, particularly given that the average GPS receiver already isn’t super sensitive nor accurate?

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Unlikely. There would be very little, if any, interference with signals unless they were extremely precise. The issue is physical stuff getting destroyed by debris.

          Think of a very light sprinkling of rain, but imagine if every raindrop was solid and moving faster than a bullet. Walking out in it would be deadly, but likely wouldn’t affect your cell phone service. Well, besides the tower itself and every structure in the area getting absolutely shredded.