5 ms·

Parisians hated the Eiffel tower when it went up, claimed it was an eyesore. Give it a few years, and these constellations will be something we look up at with

Parisians hated the Eiffel tower when it went up, claimed it was an eyesore. Give it a few years, and these constellations will be something we look up at with pride and aesthetic appreciation.

ra 6y ago
There's a big difference between a landmark and polluting the entire planet's night sky with thousands of reflective satellites.
- thereisnospork 6y ago
  Other than scale I really don't see the difference between '''desicrating''' a skyline with ugly[0] architecture and starlink et al. Sure some architecture stays ugly - but preserving the aesthetics of a sky(line) ranks really low on my list of things that are worth stopping progress over.
  - mikro2nd 6y ago
    It's not primarily about aesthetics, but about the ability to do fundamental science. Ugly buildings don't obstruct observation of the universe.
    - SiempreViernes 6y ago
      Obviously they obstruct it a bit, but generally in places you don't try to do any astronomy anyway. The real innovation of Starlink is cutting the link to the start over the almost the entirety of the Earths surface, true market disruptor move right there.
- valuearb 6y ago
  Except they aren’t visible in the night sky. They are in super low orbits, meaning they are in the earths shadow at night, and only have sunlight to reflect during dawn/dusk, when they are usually low in the horizon.
scroogeydop 6y ago
Fuck that. The stars are more beautiful than any shit they put up there.
gspr 6y ago
Yes, some initially hated things became loved. From this it does not follow that one can expect that to be the norm.
rscho 6y ago
Give me your address and I'll come and plant a light sculpture in your backyard for free. You don't get to choose anyways. At first, you'll think it's an eyesore but give it a few years and you'll learn to look at it with pride and aesthetic appreciation.
DoingIsLearning 6y ago
It's not about aesthetics, if you keep adding satellites with extremely high density, at some point you run out of gaps in the sky, that are dark enough and unobstructed for long enough time to make any meaningful measurements of the observable universe.
- shajznnckfke 6y ago
  This overstates the problem I think. It will be an issue for wide-field astronomy. On the other hand, even with tens of thousands of satellites, they will only be covering a tiny fraction of the sky. For narrow-field you should be unobstructed most of the time, and able to turn the sensor off momentarily when the odd satellite is going to obstruct you.
  - DoingIsLearning 6y ago
    > This overstates the problem I think. It will be an issue for wide-field astronomy. I think you are downplaying the problem. They are already reporting issues with Starlinks and there are "only" a few hundred of them right now, Amazon wants to deploy 3k low orbiting satellites. Look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observatories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observato... The very large majority of the world's observatories are doing wide-field astronomy. This is not scientific progress, this is just two billionaires trying to one up each other and muscling their way around the world to rub their egos.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      > This is not scientific progress, this is just two billionaires trying to one up each other and muscling their way around the world to rub their egos. Starlink claims to have other objectives. Why do you think their stated objectives are dishonest?
      - DoingIsLearning 6y ago
        Internet service is a solved problem, you have transoceanic cables and distribution networks which garantee reliable, high bandwith, internet service. This is a gimmick to sell the imaginary joy that you can go anywhere remotely and enjoy the pleasures of the modern connected world. There are already niche providers for Satellite services that users can use, if they are truly isolated and are able to afford internet. There is no sense in having all of this infrastructure duplicated and done via RF transmission over a low-orbiting constellation (with all the losses and realibility issues around it), if it can easily be achieved through expanding the existing infrastructure. The only use-cases that this serves are high-income people that want to go off-grid but are unwilling to sacrifice high-bandwith, and military deployments (Which SpaceX does not hide as an objective).
maa5444 6y ago
I am really concerned of the health of having tons of that satellites irradiation our head all the day
raxxorrax 6y ago
Unpopular opinion and I don't want to degrade the probably most prominent landmark of Paris, but it is quite ugly. It distracts from better objects like the Louvre and others.

Parisians hated the Eiffel tower when it went up, claimed it was an eyesore. Give it a few years, and these constellations will be something we look up at with pride and aesthetic appreciation.

ra 6y ago

There's a big difference between a landmark and polluting the entire planet's night sky with thousands of reflective satellites.

thereisnospork 6y ago
Other than scale I really don't see the difference between '''desicrating''' a skyline with ugly[0] architecture and starlink et al. Sure some architecture stays ugly - but preserving the aesthetics of a sky(line) ranks really low on my list of things that are worth stopping progress over.
- mikro2nd 6y ago
  It's not primarily about aesthetics, but about the ability to do fundamental science. Ugly buildings don't obstruct observation of the universe.
  - SiempreViernes 6y ago
    Obviously they obstruct it a bit, but generally in places you don't try to do any astronomy anyway. The real innovation of Starlink is cutting the link to the start over the almost the entirety of the Earths surface, true market disruptor move right there.
valuearb 6y ago
Except they aren’t visible in the night sky. They are in super low orbits, meaning they are in the earths shadow at night, and only have sunlight to reflect during dawn/dusk, when they are usually low in the horizon.

scroogeydop 6y ago

Fuck that. The stars are more beautiful than any shit they put up there.

gspr 6y ago

Yes, some initially hated things became loved. From this it does not follow that one can expect that to be the norm.

rscho 6y ago

Give me your address and I'll come and plant a light sculpture in your backyard for free. You don't get to choose anyways. At first, you'll think it's an eyesore but give it a few years and you'll learn to look at it with pride and aesthetic appreciation.

DoingIsLearning 6y ago

It's not about aesthetics, if you keep adding satellites with extremely high density, at some point you run out of gaps in the sky, that are dark enough and unobstructed for long enough time to make any meaningful measurements of the observable universe.

shajznnckfke 6y ago
This overstates the problem I think. It will be an issue for wide-field astronomy. On the other hand, even with tens of thousands of satellites, they will only be covering a tiny fraction of the sky. For narrow-field you should be unobstructed most of the time, and able to turn the sensor off momentarily when the odd satellite is going to obstruct you.
- DoingIsLearning 6y ago
  > This overstates the problem I think. It will be an issue for wide-field astronomy. I think you are downplaying the problem. They are already reporting issues with Starlinks and there are "only" a few hundred of them right now, Amazon wants to deploy 3k low orbiting satellites. Look at this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observatories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observato... The very large majority of the world's observatories are doing wide-field astronomy. This is not scientific progress, this is just two billionaires trying to one up each other and muscling their way around the world to rub their egos.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > This is not scientific progress, this is just two billionaires trying to one up each other and muscling their way around the world to rub their egos. Starlink claims to have other objectives. Why do you think their stated objectives are dishonest?
    - DoingIsLearning 6y ago
      Internet service is a solved problem, you have transoceanic cables and distribution networks which garantee reliable, high bandwith, internet service. This is a gimmick to sell the imaginary joy that you can go anywhere remotely and enjoy the pleasures of the modern connected world. There are already niche providers for Satellite services that users can use, if they are truly isolated and are able to afford internet. There is no sense in having all of this infrastructure duplicated and done via RF transmission over a low-orbiting constellation (with all the losses and realibility issues around it), if it can easily be achieved through expanding the existing infrastructure. The only use-cases that this serves are high-income people that want to go off-grid but are unwilling to sacrifice high-bandwith, and military deployments (Which SpaceX does not hide as an objective).

maa5444 6y ago

I am really concerned of the health of having tons of that satellites irradiation our head all the day

raxxorrax 6y ago

Unpopular opinion and I don't want to degrade the probably most prominent landmark of Paris, but it is quite ugly. It distracts from better objects like the Louvre and others.