4 ms·

> better monitoring system There's the Vera C. Rubin observatory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C

> better monitoring system There's the Vera C. Rubin observatory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vera_C._Rubin_Observatory https://www.lsst.org/ https://www.lsst.org/ > NASA has been tasked by the US Congress with detecting and cataloging 90% of the NEO population of size 140 meters or greater.[68] LSST, by itself, is estimated to detect 62% of such objects,[69] and according to the National Academy of Sciences, extending its survey from ten years to twelve would be the most cost-effective way of finishing the task.[70] https://www.universetoday.com/153620/nasas-new-asteroid-impact-monitoring-system-comes-online/ https://www.universetoday.com/153620/nasas-new-asteroid-impa... > The Vera C. Rubin Observatory will be a powerful tool for detecting NEAs. It’ll image each area of the sky about 1000 times in its ten-year survey. And it’ll do so with a powerful 3,200-megapixel camera. The Rubin will image the entire visible sky every two nights, and Asteroids will have nowhere to hide. And there's NEO Surveyor which is a satelite which does exactly that as well from orbit to get full coverage. https://www.universetoday.com/151539/nasa-has-approved-a-space-telescope-that-will-scan-the-skies-for-dangerous-near-earth-asteroids/ https://www.universetoday.com/151539/nasa-has-approved-a-spa... https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-approves-asteroid-hunting-space-telescope-to-continue-development https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-approves-asteroid-hunting-...

gitfan86 5y ago
FTA: "30% to 50% of the exposures around twilight" So the rest of the night it is collecting data. Sounds like ground based detection will work just fine even with more satellites in orbit.
- iso1631 5y ago
  The satelites are still going across the sky whether they are reflecting light or not
  - gitfan86 5y ago
    So are bugs and birds and planes and dust particles and uneven temperature gradients, that all have to be corrected for already when you use ground based telescopes.
    - tejtm 5y ago
      true, but those are included of the natural cost of doing business. these additional occlusions are because a private entity has chosen to take the space for their profit with zero consequence or compensation for our loss.
      - dantheman 5y ago
        You don't think availability of internet around the world isn't compensation?
      - gitfan86 5y ago
        And you are asking people in rural areas to give up cheap/fast internet access without compensating them for that loss.
        CaptArmchair 5y ago
        It's not a zero sum game. That would be ignoring a host of reasons why some people do have fast Internet access, and others don't have any at all. Finding an Internet connection on the market in the U.S. isn't equitable at all. Market consolidation and disparate regulations across the country are creating artificial scarcity which has little to do with the geography. That's just the U.S. Then there's outside of the U.S. which is a wholly different ballgame. This is a U.S. enterprise providing access to the Internet to millions in other sovereign countries. Which doesn't sit well strategically with local stakeholders. India already has already refused giving a commercial license to Starlink. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starlink-hits-a-wall-in-india https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starli... When we're talking "rural" areas outside of the Western countries, we're discussing areas which just don't have same level of development or wealth. Starlink costs 499 USD for equipment + 99 USD per month for a subscription. The average monthly salary in India was about 430 USD; add to that the urban-rural wage gap and you'll quickly conclude that Internet access via satellite is prohibitively expensive in India for millions. And that's discounting the fact that hundreds of millions of people in these rural areas don't have proper access to the electricity grid to begin with. It's not just India, is many other regions in the world where - unlike the U.S. or Europe - the economics, the lack of infrastructure or the politics just aren't favorable to ventures like this. Sure, all of this might and likely will change and the next decade or two. But that's a big gamble to make. In the mean time, Starlink's profitability remains a large question mark. You have to question whether Starlink is ultimately just playing a home match on Western markets where Internet access has become a commodity that fits in larger strategic interests of large capital investments. Starlink is a commercial venture after all, it only keeps winning if it gets to dot the roofs of millions with dishes. It's business model isn't fundamentally different from ground-based ISP's in that regard. Perception matters, and regardless of how you spin this: outside of this online bubble, a large portion of humanity simply doesn't take kindly to the appropriation of a common good such as the night sky for profiteering.
sbierwagen 5y ago
The classic gif of the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer satellite detecting asteroids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIA22419-Neowise-1stFourYearsDataFromDec2013-20180420.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIA22419-Neowise-1stFourY...

gitfan86 5y ago

FTA: "30% to 50% of the exposures around twilight" So the rest of the night it is collecting data. Sounds like ground based detection will work just fine even with more satellites in orbit.

iso1631 5y ago
The satelites are still going across the sky whether they are reflecting light or not
- gitfan86 5y ago
  So are bugs and birds and planes and dust particles and uneven temperature gradients, that all have to be corrected for already when you use ground based telescopes.
  - tejtm 5y ago
    true, but those are included of the natural cost of doing business. these additional occlusions are because a private entity has chosen to take the space for their profit with zero consequence or compensation for our loss.
    - dantheman 5y ago
      You don't think availability of internet around the world isn't compensation?
    - gitfan86 5y ago
      And you are asking people in rural areas to give up cheap/fast internet access without compensating them for that loss.
      - CaptArmchair 5y ago
        It's not a zero sum game. That would be ignoring a host of reasons why some people do have fast Internet access, and others don't have any at all. Finding an Internet connection on the market in the U.S. isn't equitable at all. Market consolidation and disparate regulations across the country are creating artificial scarcity which has little to do with the geography. That's just the U.S. Then there's outside of the U.S. which is a wholly different ballgame. This is a U.S. enterprise providing access to the Internet to millions in other sovereign countries. Which doesn't sit well strategically with local stakeholders. India already has already refused giving a commercial license to Starlink. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starlink-hits-a-wall-in-india https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/1/5/elon-musks-starli... When we're talking "rural" areas outside of the Western countries, we're discussing areas which just don't have same level of development or wealth. Starlink costs 499 USD for equipment + 99 USD per month for a subscription. The average monthly salary in India was about 430 USD; add to that the urban-rural wage gap and you'll quickly conclude that Internet access via satellite is prohibitively expensive in India for millions. And that's discounting the fact that hundreds of millions of people in these rural areas don't have proper access to the electricity grid to begin with. It's not just India, is many other regions in the world where - unlike the U.S. or Europe - the economics, the lack of infrastructure or the politics just aren't favorable to ventures like this. Sure, all of this might and likely will change and the next decade or two. But that's a big gamble to make. In the mean time, Starlink's profitability remains a large question mark. You have to question whether Starlink is ultimately just playing a home match on Western markets where Internet access has become a commodity that fits in larger strategic interests of large capital investments. Starlink is a commercial venture after all, it only keeps winning if it gets to dot the roofs of millions with dishes. It's business model isn't fundamentally different from ground-based ISP's in that regard. Perception matters, and regardless of how you spin this: outside of this online bubble, a large portion of humanity simply doesn't take kindly to the appropriation of a common good such as the night sky for profiteering.

sbierwagen 5y ago

The classic gif of the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer satellite detecting asteroids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIA22419-Neowise-1stFourYearsDataFromDec2013-20180420.gif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIA22419-Neowise-1stFourY...