4 ms·

>you can clearly see that the satellites are visible from the ground (the photo from Germany) No, you've misunderstood (in numerous ways, but this is a specifi

by xoa 6y ago

>you can clearly see that the satellites are visible from the ground (the photo from Germany) No, you've misunderstood (in numerous ways, but this is a specific one you've cited). That photo you linked is of a satellite "train", which is a temporary state of satellites after deployment as they take themselves the rest of the way to final deployment orbits. At that point they'll be both spread out and the albedo will be vastly lowered because SpaceX has already made design alterations to the sats so that in their operational alignment towards Earth they are far less reflective. They're not going to interfere with the sky from the naked eye, nor even for general photography, even from low light pollution rural areas vs typical urban ones. It doesn't help that you're almost a parody of "entitled, dismissive urbanite". Even in the developed world, tens to hundreds of millions of people have crappy DSL at best. Outside of the developed world that rises to billions. Marine and aircraft stand to make enormous gains as well. The demand for Starlink is clear and well founded, and you do your argument zero favors by trying to hand wave it away (unless you just mean to rant to no constructive end).

bjeds 6y ago
Hacker News continue to disappoint lately. I naively thought that by using my real name people here would actually treat me like a real human, not some anonymous punch bag. I don't know who you are "xoa", but that was a very rude comment. I have provided a Criticism section of a Wikipedia article that points out light pollution criticism from many authoritative sources, including photographic evidence. You dismiss this photographic evidence, but why should I listen to you when I can listen to the IAU, for example? Or Nature? Or the astronomical community? Quote International Astronomical Union: "The scientific concerns are twofold. Firstly, the surfaces of these satellites are often made of highly reflective metal, and reflections from the Sun in the hours after sunset and before sunrise make them appear as slow-moving dots in the night sky." Here's an entire article in Nature Astronomy about the issue https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-01238-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-01238-3 Here's a quote from a Senior Advisor to the European Space Agency https://twitter.com/markmccaughrean/status/1132394346945421317 https://twitter.com/markmccaughrean/status/11323943469454213... Here's an entire discussion at the American Astronomical Society about the issue https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2020/12/impacts-large-satellite-constellations-astronomy-live-updates https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2020/12/impacts-large-satelli... Here's an article about how the problem will get workse https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-dark-satellites-are-still-too-bright-for-astronomers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-dark-sate... But sure, you call me an "entitled and dismissive urbanite".
- gioscarab 6y ago
  I also see the deployment of those massive fleets of satellites in LEO to be suicidal. It makes access to space more complex and expensive. If for some reason few collide they could start a chain reaction that could destroy most LEO satellites now operational and preclude access to space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome >Aggressive space activities without adequate safeguards could significantly shorten the time between collisions and produce an intolerable hazard to future spacecraft. Some of the most environmentally dangerous activities in space include large constellations such as those initially proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s, large structures such as those considered in the late-1970s for building solar power stations in Earth orbit, and anti-satellite warfare using systems tested by the USSR, the US, and China over the past 30 years. Such aggressive activities could set up a situation where a single satellite failure could lead to cascading failures of many satellites in a period much shorter than years.
  - xoa 6y ago
    >I also see the deployment of those massive fleets of satellites in LEO to be suicidal. Incorrectly, fortunately. First, remember space is big. At hundreds of km up, even tens of thousands of satellites are by definition spread across a greater "surface" area than the entirety of the Earth. There will be fewer of them then there are aircraft flying through the skies. Second, you might find it reassuring to look up orbital drag. The atmosphere doesn't simply stop at some set point, but rather gradually thins to irrelevance (or arguably to the bow shock of the solar wind). But anything below 600-700km or so requires regular reboosts or else it will experience decay (eventually exponential) and burn up/crash (depending on construction and design). SpaceX is leveraging its launch capabilities to have lower satellites which don't last as long, but offer superior performance, eliminates many of the space trash concerns, and doesn't lock them into design decisions nearly as much. I mean, is this really such a surprise? SpaceX of ALL players clearly has enormous vested interest in making sure space access remains straight forward. Like, that's their entire foundation of business. If LEO really was closed off, no more SpaceX.
- xoa 6y ago
dang 6y ago
> you're almost a parody of "entitled, dismissive urbanite". > you do your argument zero favors by trying to hand wave it away (unless you just mean to rant to no constructive end) Personal attacks and name-calling are not ok here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Please omit such swipes when posting to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- xoa 6y ago
  I genuinely did not consider those to be personal attacks or name calling, but constructive criticism of the argument given. Dismissing development of universal rural focused broadband because in "most of Europe and SE Asia you can get gigabit broadband" is an implied dismissal of the worth of everyone outside of those privileged locations. It is indicative of a real bubbled perspective, and that's not helpful in convincing other people. And it does indeed to the argument zero favors to ignore it, because compromise is absolutely possible! This doesn't need to be total zero-sum scenario. As well as continued albedo reductions, it's possible to imagine other measures like a tiny tax on large constellation satellite internet specifically for astronomers to help fund space telescopes or other measures. Turning it purely into "this versus that" is a bad idea when "that" will overwhelmingly win. I think most people could understand a reasonable charge to help mitigate an externality. Nevertheless I accept judgement of you and community here and will try to more carefully consider replies down the road.
  - gioscarab 6y ago
    IMHO the privileged point of view is yours, we are not the only inhabitants of earth looking up to the sky in the night, many animals rely on it to navigate/migrate. Many humans still don't know what is the internet and enjoy to look at the sky for pleasure and necessity. For sure when someone thinks it is ok to change the earth's night sky, just to be able to work from home, avoid to go to the bank, to see cat videos, memes and fake news, is by definition a privileged lazy guy.

by xoa 6y ago

bjeds 6y ago

Hacker News continue to disappoint lately. I naively thought that by using my real name people here would actually treat me like a real human, not some anonymous punch bag. I don't know who you are "xoa", but that was a very rude comment. I have provided a Criticism section of a Wikipedia article that points out light pollution criticism from many authoritative sources, including photographic evidence. You dismiss this photographic evidence, but why should I listen to you when I can listen to the IAU, for example? Or Nature? Or the astronomical community? Quote International Astronomical Union: "The scientific concerns are twofold. Firstly, the surfaces of these satellites are often made of highly reflective metal, and reflections from the Sun in the hours after sunset and before sunrise make them appear as slow-moving dots in the night sky." Here's an entire article in Nature Astronomy about the issue https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-01238-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-01238-3 Here's a quote from a Senior Advisor to the European Space Agency https://twitter.com/markmccaughrean/status/1132394346945421317 https://twitter.com/markmccaughrean/status/11323943469454213... Here's an entire discussion at the American Astronomical Society about the issue https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2020/12/impacts-large-satellite-constellations-astronomy-live-updates https://aas.org/posts/advocacy/2020/12/impacts-large-satelli... Here's an article about how the problem will get workse https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-dark-satellites-are-still-too-bright-for-astronomers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/spacexs-dark-sate... But sure, you call me an "entitled and dismissive urbanite".

gioscarab 6y ago
I also see the deployment of those massive fleets of satellites in LEO to be suicidal. It makes access to space more complex and expensive. If for some reason few collide they could start a chain reaction that could destroy most LEO satellites now operational and preclude access to space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome >Aggressive space activities without adequate safeguards could significantly shorten the time between collisions and produce an intolerable hazard to future spacecraft. Some of the most environmentally dangerous activities in space include large constellations such as those initially proposed by the Strategic Defense Initiative in the mid-1980s, large structures such as those considered in the late-1970s for building solar power stations in Earth orbit, and anti-satellite warfare using systems tested by the USSR, the US, and China over the past 30 years. Such aggressive activities could set up a situation where a single satellite failure could lead to cascading failures of many satellites in a period much shorter than years.
- xoa 6y ago
  >I also see the deployment of those massive fleets of satellites in LEO to be suicidal. Incorrectly, fortunately. First, remember space is big. At hundreds of km up, even tens of thousands of satellites are by definition spread across a greater "surface" area than the entirety of the Earth. There will be fewer of them then there are aircraft flying through the skies. Second, you might find it reassuring to look up orbital drag. The atmosphere doesn't simply stop at some set point, but rather gradually thins to irrelevance (or arguably to the bow shock of the solar wind). But anything below 600-700km or so requires regular reboosts or else it will experience decay (eventually exponential) and burn up/crash (depending on construction and design). SpaceX is leveraging its launch capabilities to have lower satellites which don't last as long, but offer superior performance, eliminates many of the space trash concerns, and doesn't lock them into design decisions nearly as much. I mean, is this really such a surprise? SpaceX of ALL players clearly has enormous vested interest in making sure space access remains straight forward. Like, that's their entire foundation of business. If LEO really was closed off, no more SpaceX.
xoa 6y ago

dang 6y ago

> you're almost a parody of "entitled, dismissive urbanite". > you do your argument zero favors by trying to hand wave it away (unless you just mean to rant to no constructive end) Personal attacks and name-calling are not ok here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Please omit such swipes when posting to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

xoa 6y ago
I genuinely did not consider those to be personal attacks or name calling, but constructive criticism of the argument given. Dismissing development of universal rural focused broadband because in "most of Europe and SE Asia you can get gigabit broadband" is an implied dismissal of the worth of everyone outside of those privileged locations. It is indicative of a real bubbled perspective, and that's not helpful in convincing other people. And it does indeed to the argument zero favors to ignore it, because compromise is absolutely possible! This doesn't need to be total zero-sum scenario. As well as continued albedo reductions, it's possible to imagine other measures like a tiny tax on large constellation satellite internet specifically for astronomers to help fund space telescopes or other measures. Turning it purely into "this versus that" is a bad idea when "that" will overwhelmingly win. I think most people could understand a reasonable charge to help mitigate an externality. Nevertheless I accept judgement of you and community here and will try to more carefully consider replies down the road.
- gioscarab 6y ago
  IMHO the privileged point of view is yours, we are not the only inhabitants of earth looking up to the sky in the night, many animals rely on it to navigate/migrate. Many humans still don't know what is the internet and enjoy to look at the sky for pleasure and necessity. For sure when someone thinks it is ok to change the earth's night sky, just to be able to work from home, avoid to go to the bank, to see cat videos, memes and fake news, is by definition a privileged lazy guy.