4 ms·

The only reason we can see them is the solar panels - right? Well, let this generation of Starlinks go up as they are, and once they are out of commission in ab

The only reason we can see them is the solar panels - right? Well, let this generation of Starlinks go up as they are, and once they are out of commission in about 5 years, send up the next generation. Instead of using solar panels, they will use small nuclear reactors that will enable much higher power, potentially higher orbits, higher bandwidth, longer life etc. If you want to go NIMBY on the light, you should embrace nuclear power sources.

magicalist 7y ago
> Instead of using solar panels, they will use small nuclear reactors that will enable much higher power, potentially higher orbits, higher bandwidth, longer life etc. You'd need like 12,000 kg of plutonium 238, more than has ever been usefully produced, from an enormous nuclear production infrastructure that doesn't exist yet, all for a price that's three or four orders of magnitude bigger than for a similar number of square meters of solar panels. Anti nuclear people aren't your problem here.
semi-extrinsic 7y ago
I don't see any reason why we should allow these satellites, if we're talking about literally mass polluting the night sky. What they provide is a service that's already widely available in first world countries, and is seeing rapid increase in availability in third world countries (well, most of them, the US seems to be stagnant).
- YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
  While I understand this will have superb latency, it's still not clear to me why would Starlink be cheaper than existing VSAT. VSAT is quite expensive (starting from ~thousand dollars per month): http://www.melatnetworks.com/price-list.asp http://www.melatnetworks.com/price-list.asp Or those, with prices around 50usd/gb: https://www.vsat-systems.com/service-offerings/VAR-VNO-Dealer/var-services/rate-plan/ https://www.vsat-systems.com/service-offerings/VAR-VNO-Deale... Even if Starlink is 10x cheaper than existing VSAT it does not come even close to LTE cost. And we have 5g on the horizon.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    That’s simply not true. Viasat offers much lower cost per GB. The higher speed plans are less than $1 per GB. The cheapest plan is $50/40GB. That’s already far cheaper than mobile data. Starlink and others are likely to significantly improve on that, too. Fundamental costs (especially for later versions) are cents per GB or lower, competitive with AWS transit fees.
    - YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
      Touché. Where can I find such offers?
      - Robotbeat 7y ago
        This one: https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/viasat-reviews/ https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/viasat-reviews/ (look for "data cap") ...note that, for instance, the $50/month plan goes up to $70 after 3 months. But the data cap of 40GB is a soft cap.
        YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
        It is much cheaper than I thought. Thanks!
  - Tuna-Fish 7y ago
    The reason to expect Starlink to provide lower cost than VSAT is that SpaceX is currently paying less than $500k per functional Starlink sat (including both manufacturing and launch cost), and intends to dramatically reduce the cost from that before launching the larger stages of the constellation. In contrast, the geostationary satellites that are used by VSAT cost near billions per each. This three orders of magnitude difference in cost can be expected to be reflected in the price of the service.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  The night sky is impacted far more by blinking airplane lights and city light pollution than a few satellites. This has been a thing since the dawn of space travel. These at least provide a service that most people would benefit from, either directly through service or indirectly through increased competition. Honestly, I think more people enjoy watching Iridium satellites than are perturbed by them. We’re not talking about pollution in the sense of significant changes in the brightness of the night sky (as we are with true light pollution from cities). We’re talking about the fact that they’re detectable with the naked eye.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    The thing with Iridium watchers is that there were a small number of them. Seeing one was exciting. If all the Starlink satellites are this bright, the night sky will have more Starlink satellites than visible stars.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Iridium satellites were causing flares because of a design issue - their main antennas were essentially large mirrors. New generation of Iridium satellites fixed that issue (to my and other flare catchers' disappointment). I don't recall Starlink satellites to be designed to cause flares.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      Someone has been doing calculations very wrong. That's not even close. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1132672683974549505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1132672683974549505&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D47594.450 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1132672683974549505?re...
- flyinglizard 7y ago
  Starlink could provide global connectivity that can’t be censored or regulated in most countries - and that’s huge.
  - mhh__ 7y ago
    Until they either get jammed or shot out of the sky That and people using the service, even solely receiving can be tracked
  - Tepix 7y ago
    That's incorrect. They will need permission from countries to transmit to its areas.
  - _Microft 7y ago
    Starlink would have to comply with what the country they are transmitting to permits or doesn't if they don't want to get in all sorts of trouble. An effect that Starlink could have though, is, that people might protest censorship more because all that stands between them and freely accessing the internet is their government allowing import of receivers (instead of no cable or mobile available at all, ISPs, government, ...).
jarfil 7y ago
Or make the panels much thinner but also much bigger so we can save on street lighting; astronomers will want to use orbital telescopes anyway.
- anoncake 7y ago
  Even if astronomers wanted to, the cost of replacing all terrestrial optical telescopes by orbital ones would be astronomical. Especially if you include amateurs. Stargazing wouldn't be a thing anymore. And illuminating all of earth? I don't want to imagine the damage that would cause to ecosystems. It would completely take away peoples' choice not to live in a place with street lighting, or even to have a vacation in such a place. Street lighting is bad enough for peoples' circadian rhythms as is.
  - matz1 7y ago
    The world's always changing, they just have to adapt.
    - manicdee 7y ago
      Good luck living in a world without pollinators or insectivores.
      - chr1 7y ago
        That's a bit exaggerated, if illumination could kill all insects, there would not be any insects in arctic, which is false.
        manicdee 7y ago
        How many do you need to lose for the ecosystem to collapse? Not all, and probably as little as one or two species.
  - Tepix 7y ago
    Think about how many satellites that would require. 12,000 satellites are a joke.
_ph_ 7y ago
Yes, equipping sattelites which are destined to decay back into the atmosphere with nuclear power sources sounds like a great idea. /Facepalm
hliyan 7y ago
Or, why not find a way to make the solar panels darker and non-reflective?

magicalist 7y ago

> Instead of using solar panels, they will use small nuclear reactors that will enable much higher power, potentially higher orbits, higher bandwidth, longer life etc. You'd need like 12,000 kg of plutonium 238, more than has ever been usefully produced, from an enormous nuclear production infrastructure that doesn't exist yet, all for a price that's three or four orders of magnitude bigger than for a similar number of square meters of solar panels. Anti nuclear people aren't your problem here.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago

I don't see any reason why we should allow these satellites, if we're talking about literally mass polluting the night sky. What they provide is a service that's already widely available in first world countries, and is seeing rapid increase in availability in third world countries (well, most of them, the US seems to be stagnant).

YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
While I understand this will have superb latency, it's still not clear to me why would Starlink be cheaper than existing VSAT. VSAT is quite expensive (starting from ~thousand dollars per month): http://www.melatnetworks.com/price-list.asp http://www.melatnetworks.com/price-list.asp Or those, with prices around 50usd/gb: https://www.vsat-systems.com/service-offerings/VAR-VNO-Dealer/var-services/rate-plan/ https://www.vsat-systems.com/service-offerings/VAR-VNO-Deale... Even if Starlink is 10x cheaper than existing VSAT it does not come even close to LTE cost. And we have 5g on the horizon.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  That’s simply not true. Viasat offers much lower cost per GB. The higher speed plans are less than $1 per GB. The cheapest plan is $50/40GB. That’s already far cheaper than mobile data. Starlink and others are likely to significantly improve on that, too. Fundamental costs (especially for later versions) are cents per GB or lower, competitive with AWS transit fees.
  - YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
    Touché. Where can I find such offers?
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      This one: https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/viasat-reviews/ https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/viasat-reviews/ (look for "data cap") ...note that, for instance, the $50/month plan goes up to $70 after 3 months. But the data cap of 40GB is a soft cap.
      - YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
        It is much cheaper than I thought. Thanks!
- Tuna-Fish 7y ago
  The reason to expect Starlink to provide lower cost than VSAT is that SpaceX is currently paying less than $500k per functional Starlink sat (including both manufacturing and launch cost), and intends to dramatically reduce the cost from that before launching the larger stages of the constellation. In contrast, the geostationary satellites that are used by VSAT cost near billions per each. This three orders of magnitude difference in cost can be expected to be reflected in the price of the service.
Robotbeat 7y ago
The night sky is impacted far more by blinking airplane lights and city light pollution than a few satellites. This has been a thing since the dawn of space travel. These at least provide a service that most people would benefit from, either directly through service or indirectly through increased competition. Honestly, I think more people enjoy watching Iridium satellites than are perturbed by them. We’re not talking about pollution in the sense of significant changes in the brightness of the night sky (as we are with true light pollution from cities). We’re talking about the fact that they’re detectable with the naked eye.
- manicdee 7y ago
  The thing with Iridium watchers is that there were a small number of them. Seeing one was exciting. If all the Starlink satellites are this bright, the night sky will have more Starlink satellites than visible stars.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Iridium satellites were causing flares because of a design issue - their main antennas were essentially large mirrors. New generation of Iridium satellites fixed that issue (to my and other flare catchers' disappointment). I don't recall Starlink satellites to be designed to cause flares.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    Someone has been doing calculations very wrong. That's not even close. https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1132672683974549505?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1132672683974549505&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.nasaspaceflight.com%2Findex.php%3Ftopic%3D47594.450 https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1132672683974549505?re...
flyinglizard 7y ago
Starlink could provide global connectivity that can’t be censored or regulated in most countries - and that’s huge.
- mhh__ 7y ago
  Until they either get jammed or shot out of the sky That and people using the service, even solely receiving can be tracked
- Tepix 7y ago
  That's incorrect. They will need permission from countries to transmit to its areas.
- _Microft 7y ago
  Starlink would have to comply with what the country they are transmitting to permits or doesn't if they don't want to get in all sorts of trouble. An effect that Starlink could have though, is, that people might protest censorship more because all that stands between them and freely accessing the internet is their government allowing import of receivers (instead of no cable or mobile available at all, ISPs, government, ...).

jarfil 7y ago

Or make the panels much thinner but also much bigger so we can save on street lighting; astronomers will want to use orbital telescopes anyway.

anoncake 7y ago
Even if astronomers wanted to, the cost of replacing all terrestrial optical telescopes by orbital ones would be astronomical. Especially if you include amateurs. Stargazing wouldn't be a thing anymore. And illuminating all of earth? I don't want to imagine the damage that would cause to ecosystems. It would completely take away peoples' choice not to live in a place with street lighting, or even to have a vacation in such a place. Street lighting is bad enough for peoples' circadian rhythms as is.
- matz1 7y ago
  The world's always changing, they just have to adapt.
  - manicdee 7y ago
    Good luck living in a world without pollinators or insectivores.
    - chr1 7y ago
      That's a bit exaggerated, if illumination could kill all insects, there would not be any insects in arctic, which is false.
      - manicdee 7y ago
        How many do you need to lose for the ecosystem to collapse? Not all, and probably as little as one or two species.
- Tepix 7y ago
  Think about how many satellites that would require. 12,000 satellites are a joke.

_ph_ 7y ago

Yes, equipping sattelites which are destined to decay back into the atmosphere with nuclear power sources sounds like a great idea. /Facepalm

hliyan 7y ago

Or, why not find a way to make the solar panels darker and non-reflective?