5 ms·

Astronomers find growing number of Starlink satellite tracks

32 points by carride 5y ago

mandmandam 5y ago
We are losing our birdsong, our oceans, our soil, our water sources and our minds at a rapid pace. Now a billionaire threatens the very stars for private gain. The most constant and egalitarian symbol of the vastness and beauty of our universe. Kessler syndrome approaches in leaps and bounds, threatening to cut off space travel and satellites, for all of us, equally.
- tick_tock_tick 5y ago
  > Kessler syndrome You do understand that at the altitude they are flying at even if they fucked everything in LEO (nearly impossible anyway) we'd be fine in a decade right? Few things give me as much hope for the future of mankind then seeing the starlink constellation come online. Almost nothing is as clear of a milestone in human advancement. The fact that a dedicated billionaire can drive this gives me a great deal of faith we can handle all the climate issues.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    I'm not a Kessler expert. But the people who are say this shit is terrifying. Are you an expert? Why would we be fine in a decade? - do you understand how reliant we are on being able to launch shit into space? Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event, even in your optimistic scenario? Who's regulating this - anyone? What accountability and oversight mechanisms are in place - maybe the FCC, who recently cited thousands of fake and stolen identities identical support to justify killing net neutrality? A billionaire launching 12,000 satellites, which will necessitate 67,000 collision-adjustments a year is a "milestone in human achievement" because... ? Slightly cheaper phone and internet? And this gives you "faith we can handle all the climate issues" - my jaw drops every time I read that. I think you are vastly overestimating billionaires power to fix anything, and wildly underestimating the scale of our "climate issues". You speak as if you have confidence that you're right on this, but you give no indication that you understand the scope of these issues at all. Kessler and climate change aren't "things will work themselves out" kind of scenarios.
    - ghufran_syed 5y ago
      you may have missed the point that the starlink satellites are in really low orbits. Everything in that orbit, whether a working satellite or orbital debris will deorbit in a few years due to atmospheric drag. I’m not sure it’s terribly healthy for you to be worrying this much about things that you admit you don’t really understand?
      - alexvoda 5y ago
        Additionally, I hypothesise that orbital colissions usually result in loss of altitude. A satellite doesn't just migrate to a higher orbit. Higher orbits require higher velocities, therefore require energy input. For a collision to result in higher orbits it would have to be either with a rogue (not orbiting) object that caught up, or an object in a highly eliptical object that caught up. Head on collisions transform kinetic energy into other forms including thermal, therefore reducing the velocities of both objects.
    - rlt 5y ago
      > Why would we be fine in a decade? Because physics. Atmospheric drag at those altitudes causes orbits to decay to the point of deorbit in a matter of years. > 67,000 collision-adjustments a year Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? Because there are millions (billions?) of those happening daily, and we don’t think twice about it. There will be the occasional unmaneuverable satellite, but I expect Starship (which SpaceX has said is essentially necessary for the success of Starlink) will be cheap enough within a decade to be the “tow truck” for broken down satellites.
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        > Because physics. "Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event". > Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? NASA are concerned, as are MIT. And the Europeans Space Agency. Satellites only have so much fuel. Radar can only track so much. Tiny pieces of debris can cause a chain reaction. So, unless you have a better analogy than fucking cars, consider me unconvinced.
  - qsdf38100 5y ago
    What do you think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg ? Could you debunk that debunk video?
    - schiffern 5y ago
      De-debunk: https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_written_post_about_how_wrong_common/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_...
- throwntoday 5y ago
  This is quite a histrionic take. SpaceX are actively working to minimize or eliminate interferrence. And Starlink will fund cheaper transport to orbit. The hubris of astronomers to think they can take the stars away so their pictures aren't interrupted.
- leobg 5y ago
  For private gain? The colonization of Mars by humanity is SpaceX’s goal. In the 1960s, NASA also used private contractors for the moon mission. But nobody would have called JFK’s vision of a man on the moon by the end of the decade “private” gain.
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    Well if we buy Musks narative, I would change that to: The colonization of Mars by Elon Musk (not just him, think Columbus) is SpaceX's, Tesla's and TBC's goal. Musk and whoever he takes along is human, so that alligns with humanity just fine.
rkk3 5y ago
My understanding is that this is essentially a solved problem because they've stopped coating them in reflective material. And yes, I know they link another ars article saying it only "minimizes" the issue, doesn't take it to zero.

32 points by carride 5y ago

We are losing our birdsong, our oceans, our soil, our water sources and our minds at a rapid pace. Now a billionaire threatens the very stars for private gain. The most constant and egalitarian symbol of the vastness and beauty of our universe. Kessler syndrome approaches in leaps and bounds, threatening to cut off space travel and satellites, for all of us, equally.

tick_tock_tick 5y ago
> Kessler syndrome You do understand that at the altitude they are flying at even if they fucked everything in LEO (nearly impossible anyway) we'd be fine in a decade right? Few things give me as much hope for the future of mankind then seeing the starlink constellation come online. Almost nothing is as clear of a milestone in human advancement. The fact that a dedicated billionaire can drive this gives me a great deal of faith we can handle all the climate issues.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  I'm not a Kessler expert. But the people who are say this shit is terrifying. Are you an expert? Why would we be fine in a decade? - do you understand how reliant we are on being able to launch shit into space? Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event, even in your optimistic scenario? Who's regulating this - anyone? What accountability and oversight mechanisms are in place - maybe the FCC, who recently cited thousands of fake and stolen identities identical support to justify killing net neutrality? A billionaire launching 12,000 satellites, which will necessitate 67,000 collision-adjustments a year is a "milestone in human achievement" because... ? Slightly cheaper phone and internet? And this gives you "faith we can handle all the climate issues" - my jaw drops every time I read that. I think you are vastly overestimating billionaires power to fix anything, and wildly underestimating the scale of our "climate issues". You speak as if you have confidence that you're right on this, but you give no indication that you understand the scope of these issues at all. Kessler and climate change aren't "things will work themselves out" kind of scenarios.
  - ghufran_syed 5y ago
    you may have missed the point that the starlink satellites are in really low orbits. Everything in that orbit, whether a working satellite or orbital debris will deorbit in a few years due to atmospheric drag. I’m not sure it’s terribly healthy for you to be worrying this much about things that you admit you don’t really understand?
    - alexvoda 5y ago
      Additionally, I hypothesise that orbital colissions usually result in loss of altitude. A satellite doesn't just migrate to a higher orbit. Higher orbits require higher velocities, therefore require energy input. For a collision to result in higher orbits it would have to be either with a rogue (not orbiting) object that caught up, or an object in a highly eliptical object that caught up. Head on collisions transform kinetic energy into other forms including thermal, therefore reducing the velocities of both objects.
  - rlt 5y ago
    > Why would we be fine in a decade? Because physics. Atmospheric drag at those altitudes causes orbits to decay to the point of deorbit in a matter of years. > 67,000 collision-adjustments a year Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? Because there are millions (billions?) of those happening daily, and we don’t think twice about it. There will be the occasional unmaneuverable satellite, but I expect Starship (which SpaceX has said is essentially necessary for the success of Starlink) will be cheap enough within a decade to be the “tow truck” for broken down satellites.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      > Because physics. "Can you comprehend the political fallout of such an event". > Do you consider drivers making adjustments in steering to avoid collisions with other cars to be a problem? NASA are concerned, as are MIT. And the Europeans Space Agency. Satellites only have so much fuel. Radar can only track so much. Tiny pieces of debris can cause a chain reaction. So, unless you have a better analogy than fucking cars, consider me unconvinced.
- qsdf38100 5y ago
  What do you think of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vuMzGhc1cg ? Could you debunk that debunk video?
  - schiffern 5y ago
    De-debunk: https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_written_post_about_how_wrong_common/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/rppkb5/very_well_...
throwntoday 5y ago
This is quite a histrionic take. SpaceX are actively working to minimize or eliminate interferrence. And Starlink will fund cheaper transport to orbit. The hubris of astronomers to think they can take the stars away so their pictures aren't interrupted.
leobg 5y ago
For private gain? The colonization of Mars by humanity is SpaceX’s goal. In the 1960s, NASA also used private contractors for the moon mission. But nobody would have called JFK’s vision of a man on the moon by the end of the decade “private” gain.
- alexvoda 5y ago
  Well if we buy Musks narative, I would change that to: The colonization of Mars by Elon Musk (not just him, think Columbus) is SpaceX's, Tesla's and TBC's goal. Musk and whoever he takes along is human, so that alligns with humanity just fine.

rkk3 5y ago

My understanding is that this is essentially a solved problem because they've stopped coating them in reflective material. And yes, I know they link another ars article saying it only "minimizes" the issue, doesn't take it to zero.