5 ms·

I don't like Starlink. It increases light pollution, even in places without much human activity, which is a disaster for astronomers. Moreover, sending satelli

I don't like Starlink. It increases light pollution, even in places without much human activity, which is a disaster for astronomers. Moreover, sending satellites to space is really inefficient. It wastes a lot of energy and pollutes a lot. To increase coverage, the amount of satellite they'll need will be more and more. And the skies will become more and more full of space junk (each satellite lives for 7 years). I think there are other solutions. But of course, other solutions do not favour Elon Musk as much.

yodsanklai 4y ago
> But of course, other solutions do not favour Elon Musk as much How a single man can be responsible to so much nuisance to the rest of humanity...
- mlindner 4y ago
  By the media turning him into a boogeyman and simultaneously a poster child.
ctdonath 4y ago
SX is actively solving the light pollution problem. A few satellites orbiting use far fewer materials to provide coverage of the entire planet than doing so terrestrially would. As Starlink satellites age out they de-orbit. No space junk. You’re welcome to propose & implement better solutions. Until then, this is the very best humans can do to lift all of humanity with minimal environmental impact.
_joel 4y ago
What solutions?
tuatoru 4y ago
Fortunately, NIMBYism isn't holding things up in low earth orbit.
justrudd 4y ago
That's fair. I will say that my parents are loving it. They live in a very rural area. Until Starlink, the fastest speed they could get from Verizon (the only provider they have access to) was maybe 4 to 5Mbps. And it was still capped at 20GiB a month. Starlink gets them 60 to 70Mbps during overcast/rainy days and 100 to 120Mbps on sunny days with no cap. I know it isn't altruistic of Starlink to cover these areas, but at least they are. I can now see my parents via video chat multiple times a month vs. seeing them a couple of times a year. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, the cable providers, etc. just don't care about them. And rightfully so. They are an extremely small market. It annoys me how much money the US government has given to these ISPs in the hopes that they'll expand rural access, but they never do. Or they use the money to pay lobbyist to say "4g is fine for them"
mlindner 4y ago
> It increases light pollution Not the conventional definition of light pollution. The conventional definintion of light pollution is sky glow, which is not caused by satellites. Further, the satellites are around 6th magnitude, which is below human eye visible, but certainly still problematic to astronomers. > which is a disaster for astronomers. A "disaster" is overstating it. Take a look at this study for example https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument-analyzes-impact-of-starlink-satellites https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument... > "There is a small chance that we would miss an asteroid or another event hidden behind a satellite streak, but compared to the impact of weather, such as a cloudy sky, these are rather small effects for ZTF." . > Moreover, sending satellites to space is really inefficient. It wastes a lot of energy and pollutes a lot. Space launch is a miniscule portion of global emissions and there is no reasonable way it would seriously contribute to global emissions going forward. Further, as the fuel costs are such a small portion of launch costs, it would be easy enough to produce the fuel via direct carbon capture and have it still be economic, which is a path forward in the future. > To increase coverage, the amount of satellite they'll need will be more and more. The goal is never to serve high density areas. It's to serve areas that are functionally impossible to serve any other way without massive government subsidy. > And the skies will become more and more full of space junk (each satellite lives for 7 years). You've misheard. Those satellites don't stay in orbit very long as their orbits are so low. They'll deorbit within a few years, even if completely lost, but normally they'll de-orbit automatically at the end of life, producing no debris.

yodsanklai 4y ago

> But of course, other solutions do not favour Elon Musk as much How a single man can be responsible to so much nuisance to the rest of humanity...

mlindner 4y ago
By the media turning him into a boogeyman and simultaneously a poster child.

ctdonath 4y ago

SX is actively solving the light pollution problem. A few satellites orbiting use far fewer materials to provide coverage of the entire planet than doing so terrestrially would. As Starlink satellites age out they de-orbit. No space junk. You’re welcome to propose & implement better solutions. Until then, this is the very best humans can do to lift all of humanity with minimal environmental impact.

_joel 4y ago

What solutions?

tuatoru 4y ago

Fortunately, NIMBYism isn't holding things up in low earth orbit.

justrudd 4y ago

That's fair. I will say that my parents are loving it. They live in a very rural area. Until Starlink, the fastest speed they could get from Verizon (the only provider they have access to) was maybe 4 to 5Mbps. And it was still capped at 20GiB a month. Starlink gets them 60 to 70Mbps during overcast/rainy days and 100 to 120Mbps on sunny days with no cap. I know it isn't altruistic of Starlink to cover these areas, but at least they are. I can now see my parents via video chat multiple times a month vs. seeing them a couple of times a year. Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, the cable providers, etc. just don't care about them. And rightfully so. They are an extremely small market. It annoys me how much money the US government has given to these ISPs in the hopes that they'll expand rural access, but they never do. Or they use the money to pay lobbyist to say "4g is fine for them"

mlindner 4y ago

> It increases light pollution Not the conventional definition of light pollution. The conventional definintion of light pollution is sky glow, which is not caused by satellites. Further, the satellites are around 6th magnitude, which is below human eye visible, but certainly still problematic to astronomers. > which is a disaster for astronomers. A "disaster" is overstating it. Take a look at this study for example https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument-analyzes-impact-of-starlink-satellites https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument... > "There is a small chance that we would miss an asteroid or another event hidden behind a satellite streak, but compared to the impact of weather, such as a cloudy sky, these are rather small effects for ZTF." . > Moreover, sending satellites to space is really inefficient. It wastes a lot of energy and pollutes a lot. Space launch is a miniscule portion of global emissions and there is no reasonable way it would seriously contribute to global emissions going forward. Further, as the fuel costs are such a small portion of launch costs, it would be easy enough to produce the fuel via direct carbon capture and have it still be economic, which is a path forward in the future. > To increase coverage, the amount of satellite they'll need will be more and more. The goal is never to serve high density areas. It's to serve areas that are functionally impossible to serve any other way without massive government subsidy. > And the skies will become more and more full of space junk (each satellite lives for 7 years). You've misheard. Those satellites don't stay in orbit very long as their orbits are so low. They'll deorbit within a few years, even if completely lost, but normally they'll de-orbit automatically at the end of life, producing no debris.