3 ms·

Why are you framing it as a hate Musk endeavour? So weird. It's pollute the sky because some people are on the hype train. The answer is already radio towers, t

Why are you framing it as a hate Musk endeavour? So weird. It's pollute the sky because some people are on the hype train. The answer is already radio towers, they can be installed anywhere. We have cheap fibre rolled out throughout South Africa, but now the Square Kilometre Array (which previously had complete radio silence) must deal with this nonsense flying overhead.

mardifoufs 3y ago
But it does not pollute the sky. I don't think my issue about people hating Elon! That's more than fine. It's just that he is polarizing, so it seems like misconceptions and immaculate info about stuff he is involved in are believed very fast and spread very wide. In this case I don't think starlink satellites ever caused long term light/space population and even first gen sats (that didn't get any "cloaking" to avoid reflecting light) aren't visible after they reached their long term orbit. Even for space debris, I've not seen any credible source that argues the satellites won't easily re enter the atmosphere when they reach their end lives. Leaving little space junk behind. Fwiw for the most part, i don't really care about the cool stuff Elon gets to put his "brand name on" I just find starlink super neat! Especially since they actually managed to get the inter satellite laser "fabric" working well which which is a concept that I find extremely neat. That's probably the extent of my biais.
devit 3y ago
Radio towers are at much lower altitude, so you need way more of them than satellites to cover the whole planet. Also you need permission on land and you need a boat in addition to the tower on the sea. Plus always having line of sight to the tower is harder unless you make them extra tall. I assume that makes them much more expensive and is why cell phone coverage is not global.

3 ms·

Why are you framing it as a hate Musk endeavour? So weird. It's pollute the sky because some people are on the hype train. The answer is already radio towers, t

by botanical 3y ago

mardifoufs 3y ago
But it does not pollute the sky. I don't think my issue about people hating Elon! That's more than fine. It's just that he is polarizing, so it seems like misconceptions and immaculate info about stuff he is involved in are believed very fast and spread very wide. In this case I don't think starlink satellites ever caused long term light/space population and even first gen sats (that didn't get any "cloaking" to avoid reflecting light) aren't visible after they reached their long term orbit. Even for space debris, I've not seen any credible source that argues the satellites won't easily re enter the atmosphere when they reach their end lives. Leaving little space junk behind. Fwiw for the most part, i don't really care about the cool stuff Elon gets to put his "brand name on" I just find starlink super neat! Especially since they actually managed to get the inter satellite laser "fabric" working well which which is a concept that I find extremely neat. That's probably the extent of my biais.
devit 3y ago
Radio towers are at much lower altitude, so you need way more of them than satellites to cover the whole planet. Also you need permission on land and you need a boat in addition to the tower on the sea. Plus always having line of sight to the tower is harder unless you make them extra tall. I assume that makes them much more expensive and is why cell phone coverage is not global.