5 ms·

am i the only person thinking that there should be laws to prevent rich individuals to increase the mass in LEO by a factor 10 in less than 10 years? i understa

am i the only person thinking that there should be laws to prevent rich individuals to increase the mass in LEO by a factor 10 in less than 10 years? i understand the enthusiasm but shouldn't these decisions let to the people, countries, for instance an intergouvernemental agency. also: is the dark coating working? without it those are quite visible, and make radio and optical astronomy much harder (especially large sky surveys).

Strom 6y ago
Would it apply only to the rich or to everyone? If everyone, then why bring out the richness? Do you want to prevent satellites existing completely or just keep it at some threshold that has been crossed? Most importantly, what's the actual problem here? You haven't pointed out any downsides of having increased mass in LEO.
- immmmmm 6y ago
  this applies to everyone but only the rich has the money. the technology almost didn't change since von Braun in 1940, go have a look at a V2 turbopump and compare with the latest Barber-Nichols models. sure metal alloys changed a bit, ball bearings are better, etc... "Rocket Science" is still the same as 80 years ago: fine engineering and a lot of testing. there are a lot of useful satellites: for instance for Earth monitoring, it happens we are on a climate transient, those are very relevant. not saying that ppl in rural areas do not deserve internet, but Musk was clear that Starlink was more to finance his mars dream first and foremost. the problem is pollution and deregulation. and kessler syndrome that might knock out essential satellites in the long run.
jonplackett 6y ago
I mean, they had to apply for a license to do it, and it was granted.
- immmmmm 6y ago
  by whom? the FCC. i live in switzerland, does USA own LEO?
  - fabiospampinato 6y ago
    It doesn't work like that, "owning" and human laws in general are kind of a fantasy, to make an absurd hypothetical scenario to illustrate this: imagine the aliens landed on Earth, would you say they should first get a permit to anchor their spaceship somewhere before doing that? At the end of the day words on paper don't matter much, if Switzerland shoots those satellites down they could be deleted from the world map with some nukes, who has the power decides.
  - jhayward 6y ago
    Under the International Treaty for Outer Space, each signatory nation is responsible for regulating that activity of those operating from within their territory. Switzerland signed the treat in 1967 [1] So that's all as it should be, and Switzerland agrees that the mechanism of regulation is the operant one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Responsibility_for_activities_in_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Responsibil...
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Whoever has power and the inclination to enforce their will upon others decides everything, period. This whole fantasy of "rights" that people like to engage in is just that - a fantasy. The best you can hope for is that the strongest is also a benevolent philosopher king.
  - bombcar 6y ago
    Effectively? Yes. Not in a “we can prevent anything we want” but a “we can do whatever we want” way.
mempko 6y ago
FCC actually gave Spacex 900 million to put those things up there. So Musk will profit at our expense. Are all his businesses government subsidized? I could still see the trail of them before dusk so it appears it isn't working. edit: the experts agree that spacex didn't do enough to reduce reflectivity and that it's still an issue. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-are-better-but-not-perfect-say-astronomers/ https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...
- kitsunesoba 6y ago
  If you're seeing trains of satellites, those have not yet reached their parking orbits and have not oriented themselves or deployed their sunshades. Once they've gotten to where they're intended to be, they'll become far more dim and for the most part should only be visible during a brief period around dusk.
  - mempko 6y ago
    So they haven't solved the reflectivity issue? Solving it would mean they aren't visible at all with the naked eye. Since there are thousands of them, this is a problem for land based observation no? edit: looks like it's still a problem according to experts. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-are-better-but-not-perfect-say-astronomers/ https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...
- aerovistae 6y ago
  "at our expense"? You clearly don't have to deal with rural internet if you think this is a net loss for society.
  - mempko 6y ago
    It could have been a non-profit operation no? I would expect rural internet to be cheaper than what SpaceX is charging. $100 per month is very expensive, especially for people in rural areas which generally are poorer. Example, I believe over 90% of rural china has high speed internet and they pay less than $10 a month. Edit. Anyone have a good argument why we can't get $10 per month high speed internet in rural areas in the USA? If spacex can get there costs down to $10 per month, then I will be impressed. Otherwise it isn't cheaper than laying fiber.
manicdee 6y ago
The dark coating isn’t used anymore, they have a visor/sunshade instead. The satellites people can see with the naked eye have not reached their service orbit yet, and they are not aligned to use the sunshade (they are instead configured to raise orbit as quickly as possible). As for the rules about polluting space, the simple fact is that none of the rules makers expected that some agency would want to launch thousands of satellites. There are no rules covering this scenario. AFAIK the nearest we have to rules covering the proliferation of communications satellites are ITU rules on access to spectrum. There’s no restriction on the number of satellites, just who is using what frequency in which part of the sky. If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban.
- immmmmm 6y ago
  thanks for the precisions! i fear however no one wants to rule on that, at least for now.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban. Question is, why would one want it? It's going to look like an equivalent of someone in XIX century capping the maximum amounts of widgets a factory can produce per year to a level that can be matched by artisan production, because all those conveyor belts and precision parts are making production too fast. Assuming one likes the idea of humanity spreading out past Earth's surface, and perhaps taking the dirtiest aspects of civilization upwell - we're going to need a proper space-based economy. Mining, manufacturing and all. Starlink's impact on LEO is going to look like child's play in comparison. So if one wants to see space being developed, then one has to accept and embrace that Earth's orbit is going to get way more cluttered than it is.
  - manicdee 6y ago
    In the surface of the Earth we have designated conservation areas, wilderness areas and “dark sky parks” all intended to reduce the impact of human industry on the natural environment. We do not need StarLink to industrialise space, and we do not need factories in low Earth orbit to maximally utilise space-borne resources. This desire to pollute our skies with industrial light pollution will look to future humans as ill-guided and poorly motivated as draining the swamps (and later wondering why our ecosystems are failing).
mullingitover 6y ago
> i understand the enthusiasm but shouldn't these decisions let to the people, countries, for instance a intergouvernemental agency. The people elected the leadership which oversees the government agency which approved this project, so ultimately the people allowed this project to happen. This isn't a case of one person doing something alone.

Strom 6y ago

Would it apply only to the rich or to everyone? If everyone, then why bring out the richness? Do you want to prevent satellites existing completely or just keep it at some threshold that has been crossed? Most importantly, what's the actual problem here? You haven't pointed out any downsides of having increased mass in LEO.

immmmmm 6y ago
this applies to everyone but only the rich has the money. the technology almost didn't change since von Braun in 1940, go have a look at a V2 turbopump and compare with the latest Barber-Nichols models. sure metal alloys changed a bit, ball bearings are better, etc... "Rocket Science" is still the same as 80 years ago: fine engineering and a lot of testing. there are a lot of useful satellites: for instance for Earth monitoring, it happens we are on a climate transient, those are very relevant. not saying that ppl in rural areas do not deserve internet, but Musk was clear that Starlink was more to finance his mars dream first and foremost. the problem is pollution and deregulation. and kessler syndrome that might knock out essential satellites in the long run.

jonplackett 6y ago

I mean, they had to apply for a license to do it, and it was granted.

immmmmm 6y ago
by whom? the FCC. i live in switzerland, does USA own LEO?
- fabiospampinato 6y ago
  It doesn't work like that, "owning" and human laws in general are kind of a fantasy, to make an absurd hypothetical scenario to illustrate this: imagine the aliens landed on Earth, would you say they should first get a permit to anchor their spaceship somewhere before doing that? At the end of the day words on paper don't matter much, if Switzerland shoots those satellites down they could be deleted from the world map with some nukes, who has the power decides.
- jhayward 6y ago
  Under the International Treaty for Outer Space, each signatory nation is responsible for regulating that activity of those operating from within their territory. Switzerland signed the treat in 1967 [1] So that's all as it should be, and Switzerland agrees that the mechanism of regulation is the operant one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Responsibility_for_activities_in_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty#Responsibil...
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Whoever has power and the inclination to enforce their will upon others decides everything, period. This whole fantasy of "rights" that people like to engage in is just that - a fantasy. The best you can hope for is that the strongest is also a benevolent philosopher king.
- bombcar 6y ago
  Effectively? Yes. Not in a “we can prevent anything we want” but a “we can do whatever we want” way.

mempko 6y ago

FCC actually gave Spacex 900 million to put those things up there. So Musk will profit at our expense. Are all his businesses government subsidized? I could still see the trail of them before dusk so it appears it isn't working. edit: the experts agree that spacex didn't do enough to reduce reflectivity and that it's still an issue. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-are-better-but-not-perfect-say-astronomers/ https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

kitsunesoba 6y ago
If you're seeing trains of satellites, those have not yet reached their parking orbits and have not oriented themselves or deployed their sunshades. Once they've gotten to where they're intended to be, they'll become far more dim and for the most part should only be visible during a brief period around dusk.
- mempko 6y ago
  So they haven't solved the reflectivity issue? Solving it would mean they aren't visible at all with the naked eye. Since there are thousands of them, this is a problem for land based observation no? edit: looks like it's still a problem according to experts. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-are-better-but-not-perfect-say-astronomers/ https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...
aerovistae 6y ago
"at our expense"? You clearly don't have to deal with rural internet if you think this is a net loss for society.
- mempko 6y ago
  It could have been a non-profit operation no? I would expect rural internet to be cheaper than what SpaceX is charging. $100 per month is very expensive, especially for people in rural areas which generally are poorer. Example, I believe over 90% of rural china has high speed internet and they pay less than $10 a month. Edit. Anyone have a good argument why we can't get $10 per month high speed internet in rural areas in the USA? If spacex can get there costs down to $10 per month, then I will be impressed. Otherwise it isn't cheaper than laying fiber.

manicdee 6y ago

The dark coating isn’t used anymore, they have a visor/sunshade instead. The satellites people can see with the naked eye have not reached their service orbit yet, and they are not aligned to use the sunshade (they are instead configured to raise orbit as quickly as possible). As for the rules about polluting space, the simple fact is that none of the rules makers expected that some agency would want to launch thousands of satellites. There are no rules covering this scenario. AFAIK the nearest we have to rules covering the proliferation of communications satellites are ITU rules on access to spectrum. There’s no restriction on the number of satellites, just who is using what frequency in which part of the sky. If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban.

immmmmm 6y ago
thanks for the precisions! i fear however no one wants to rule on that, at least for now.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban. Question is, why would one want it? It's going to look like an equivalent of someone in XIX century capping the maximum amounts of widgets a factory can produce per year to a level that can be matched by artisan production, because all those conveyor belts and precision parts are making production too fast. Assuming one likes the idea of humanity spreading out past Earth's surface, and perhaps taking the dirtiest aspects of civilization upwell - we're going to need a proper space-based economy. Mining, manufacturing and all. Starlink's impact on LEO is going to look like child's play in comparison. So if one wants to see space being developed, then one has to accept and embrace that Earth's orbit is going to get way more cluttered than it is.
- manicdee 6y ago
  In the surface of the Earth we have designated conservation areas, wilderness areas and “dark sky parks” all intended to reduce the impact of human industry on the natural environment. We do not need StarLink to industrialise space, and we do not need factories in low Earth orbit to maximally utilise space-borne resources. This desire to pollute our skies with industrial light pollution will look to future humans as ill-guided and poorly motivated as draining the swamps (and later wondering why our ecosystems are failing).

mullingitover 6y ago

> i understand the enthusiasm but shouldn't these decisions let to the people, countries, for instance a intergouvernemental agency. The people elected the leadership which oversees the government agency which approved this project, so ultimately the people allowed this project to happen. This isn't a case of one person doing something alone.