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

  • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    167
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • piecat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Do those remote villages even have the power to plug in a PC and starlink equipment?

            In college I helped make solar phone chargers for some villages in wartorn areas. They would walk days to charge their phones and battery banks, then walk back. Somehow they had cellular service, but the power lines to their village were ripped down during a conflict.

            There’s probably an exceedingly small population that is in a third world place with power, with devices that need internet, but are also without internet.

        • Z4rK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not a distant future, the benefits are already here and increasing with each launch.

          I’ve been tracking a sailboat crossing the Atlantic Ocean the past weeks which have been able to upload videos to YouTube everyday, something that would be impossible without Starlink.

          Of course, this specific use case isn’t important, just used it to point out that Starlink is already working well.

          • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            To my knowledge absolutely nothing critical to Ukranian defense uses Starlink.

            And again, what is niave is to not heavily discount any claims Elon makes. Starlink provides neglible value currently, what potential might exist is imaginary.

            The best thing for the world is to realize Elon was a sunk cost and move on

            • SoPunny@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Elon already fucked with their starlink I believe, but I didn’t recheck to be fair. Also seriously, don’t trust that man with shit.

              • dragontamer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I tried to separate the conversation from Elon to keep it more honest about the benefits of accessible internet for everyone anywhere on Earth.

                So why do you think that launching thousands of satellites would be more cost-effective than other options?

                1. Satellites are expensive.

                2. Launching them into space is expensive.

                3. Cell phones, and cell phone towers are cheap.

                4. Elon Musk is launching them into an orbit where they’ll decay in 10 years anyway, meaning you’ll have to perpetually launch these thousands, or even 10s of thousands of satellites into space just to keep service.

                5. Traditional satellite companies launch fewer numbers of many satellites into the sky to cover large swaths of land instead. Since they aim at rural areas (ex: the Ocean with no one there), they are superior in a cost/efficacy perspective. Yes, there’s less bandwidth, but there’s less people, so its a fine tradeoff.

                6. If you need more density, building cell phone networks / cell phone towers is just superior.

                7. If you need even more density than what cell phones can give you, then there’s always fiber optic directly.

                  • dragontamer@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Well, a quick google makes me think a single cell tower and a single satellite are close to the same price.

                    All the satellites in question burn up within 10ish years due to their placement in orbit. In fact, a large number of SpaceX satellites already exploded due to mistakes during their deployment.

                    Cell towers don’t burn up like that just sitting around.

                    I think it would take a lot more work and money to set up towers in the poor countries/areas infrastructure doesn’t exist/hard terrain/desolate areas/warzones/middle of the ocean/etc. But you’d have to weigh in the sacrificing space, which is invaluable to me personally.

                    Cool. We already have Hughesnet and have had it for decades.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lmao go run some fiop in the Amazon and let me know how that shakes out

              • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                For the third time, you cannot separate the grifter from the grift. That’s not “Fuck Elon”, that’s “starlink is not, and never will be, what was promised”

                Similarly, you can’t weigh an abstract possibility versus a real cost. You want the conversation to be some philosophical discourse about social vs societal value. But it’s not that, it’s a real situation right now.

                And in this real life situation, we have to evaluate what starlink actually is - - a failed toy for wealthy early adopters - - and not what some abstract “could be”.

                Especially when we know for a fact that any public promises of that potential are certainly intended to mislead and not inform.

                  • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    It’s definitely not an honest conversation when you’ve deliberately and repeatedly chosen to misunderstand what’s being said.

                    It’s time to grow up and stop believing hucksters and grifters.

      • tempest@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, but you’re creating a false dichotomy to get to your conclusion. The way Starlink is creating its satellite network is not the only way to create one. Viasat doesn’t blanket the globe in satellites.

    • qisope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        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.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • ilickfrogs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I have to agree here. I think a temporary compromise could be reducing the constellation size, spread out the dishes and reduce throughput. The accessibility Starlink offers is a 11/10 win for the world. But the bandwidth and size should come after we have better mitigation for Kessler Syndrome and inference with observing the universe. Alternatively, lets slap some big fuckin’ telescopes on the moon and call it a day!

    • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        so many people tie their self worth to something ridiculous, like a personality, or a sports team, or politician, and absolutely lose their mind over any criticism or wrong doing, because they take it as a personal assault on them.

        • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s understandable to want to be a part of something bigger, and we want to defend our comfort zones so people get carried away.

          To me, it’s just immature

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Theres a difference between being part of something bigger, and tying your identity and self worth to a person or thing.