4 ms·

Brightness reduction is nice but it's still important to also consider the energy required to keep starlink running: https://twitter.com/rdrimmel/status/1563158

Brightness reduction is nice but it's still important to also consider the energy required to keep starlink running: https://twitter.com/rdrimmel/status/1563158073694310401 https://twitter.com/rdrimmel/status/1563158073694310401

Trufa 3y ago
This comment is the most egregious case of whataboutism I've seen in a while.
- EA-3167 3y ago
  Whataboutism refers to a Soviet-era habit of rhetorical distraction, i.e. "The USSR does something terrible," to which the reply was, "Whatabout the terrible things the US does?" How does the comment you're referring to add up to that?
  - Trufa 3y ago
    Light pollution is fixed ,but WHAT ABOUT co2 is what I meant.
    - EA-3167 3y ago
      That's... not whataboutism, it isn't an attempt to distract from an accusation or problem, it's the opposite of that in fact.
      - Trufa 3y ago
        I honestly don't get your point, you probably misunderstand me, we might disagree, but this is not the opposite case of whataboutism. This advancement is objectively good, it's one of the issues raised later in the twitter thread even, and (s)he chooses to change the focus to another subject.
        yc-kraln 3y ago
        This is called "moving the goalposts", not whataboutism. Whataboutism would be "Yeah, well, who cares what Starlink does, NASA launches rockets all the time and no one complains about their emissions"
superkuh 3y ago
I wonder if that guy has worked out the energy required to build the ground infrastructure to bring communications to all of Earth.
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  Ah yes, because Musk is a philanthropist and is doing this for earth as a whole. That's why for poorer, thrid world countries, he'll... keep charging the usual rate, making Starlink a non-starter in those countries ? Starlink is a rich idiot's toy, not a solution to bring communications to everyone.
  - m3kw9 3y ago
    It’s expensive because of capacity limits and this is why it is stated for use in remote areas.
  - cma 3y ago
    They do price discriminate to a cheaper price for poorer countries (in Ukraine it went the opposite despite being a poor country, where they tried to jack the price up by thousands of percent, but we don't know the terms of the recent pentagon deal to say what price it finally went through at).
- cma 3y ago
  As I understand it, the cost of fiber repair has gone down and we should be able to wire everywhere that has grid electricity with high speed fiber very economically, but it doesn't happen for rent seeking and bureaucratic reasons. That would still leave the oceans and some more remote areas that don't have power.
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    A lot of places have no grid electricity worth calling that. And of those that do, there is no financially feasible way to wire them up with fiber.
George83728 3y ago
No it isn't, the "energy costs" are negligible. That link is a joke, he's fear mongering about the effect of satellites falling back to earth but can't point to any specific harm; "Effect? WE HAVE NO IDEA." Classic Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt; aka FUD.
mojomark 3y ago
Why do you have to launch by rocket? Why not something like spinlaunch(1), perhaps powered in situ by stored renewable energy? 1. https://www.spinlaunch.com/ https://www.spinlaunch.com/
- YourCompanyHere 3y ago
  sadly spinlaunch is bogus and the whole concept doesn't really work out. [0] [0] https://youtu.be/9ziGI0i9VbE https://youtu.be/9ziGI0i9VbE (Spinlaunch: BUSTED! by Thunderf00t)
  - mavhc 3y ago
    Thunderf00t isn't science, it's a youtube channel who wants to get views. He also busted Starlink because apparently technology costs never reduce, and single geostationary satellites have infinite bandwidth
    - jfengel 3y ago
      YouTube channels are bogus, but he's not wrong. It's wildly unlikely. Any actual project would require not just a payload that can handle insane stresses, but also rockets for orbital insertion. Rockets that can handle those kinds of ludicrous launch stresses are hard to conceive. I can't prove that it's impossible, but the gap between the requirements and even the most extreme conception of what's feasible is so immense as to basically dismiss out of hand. They're welcome to keep trying, but it absolutely will not happen soon and is not worth the level of attention it receives.
  - MostlyStable 3y ago
    That video actually explicitly says that the concept _can_ work, he's just skeptical that the current company is likely to achieve it. I wasn't particularly impressed. Yeah, maybe spinlauch the entity _won't_ achieve it. Most people who try to do very hard things fail. But the only way we advance is because sometimes they don't.
- inamberclad 3y ago
mardifoufs 3y ago
Talk about grasping at straws. Come on.
DennisP 3y ago
That thread claims the Starship launches for Starlink are "expected to have a significant effect on the atmosphere," but for support it links to an article about the black soot emitted by kerosene-fueled rockets like Falcon. Starship is fueled by methane, a much cleaner-burning fuel.

Trufa 3y ago

This comment is the most egregious case of whataboutism I've seen in a while.

EA-3167 3y ago
Whataboutism refers to a Soviet-era habit of rhetorical distraction, i.e. "The USSR does something terrible," to which the reply was, "Whatabout the terrible things the US does?" How does the comment you're referring to add up to that?
- Trufa 3y ago
  Light pollution is fixed ,but WHAT ABOUT co2 is what I meant.
  - EA-3167 3y ago
    That's... not whataboutism, it isn't an attempt to distract from an accusation or problem, it's the opposite of that in fact.
    - Trufa 3y ago
      I honestly don't get your point, you probably misunderstand me, we might disagree, but this is not the opposite case of whataboutism. This advancement is objectively good, it's one of the issues raised later in the twitter thread even, and (s)he chooses to change the focus to another subject.
      - yc-kraln 3y ago
        This is called "moving the goalposts", not whataboutism. Whataboutism would be "Yeah, well, who cares what Starlink does, NASA launches rockets all the time and no one complains about their emissions"

superkuh 3y ago

I wonder if that guy has worked out the energy required to build the ground infrastructure to bring communications to all of Earth.

ohgodplsno 3y ago
Ah yes, because Musk is a philanthropist and is doing this for earth as a whole. That's why for poorer, thrid world countries, he'll... keep charging the usual rate, making Starlink a non-starter in those countries ? Starlink is a rich idiot's toy, not a solution to bring communications to everyone.
- m3kw9 3y ago
  It’s expensive because of capacity limits and this is why it is stated for use in remote areas.
- cma 3y ago
  They do price discriminate to a cheaper price for poorer countries (in Ukraine it went the opposite despite being a poor country, where they tried to jack the price up by thousands of percent, but we don't know the terms of the recent pentagon deal to say what price it finally went through at).
cma 3y ago
As I understand it, the cost of fiber repair has gone down and we should be able to wire everywhere that has grid electricity with high speed fiber very economically, but it doesn't happen for rent seeking and bureaucratic reasons. That would still leave the oceans and some more remote areas that don't have power.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  A lot of places have no grid electricity worth calling that. And of those that do, there is no financially feasible way to wire them up with fiber.

George83728 3y ago

No it isn't, the "energy costs" are negligible. That link is a joke, he's fear mongering about the effect of satellites falling back to earth but can't point to any specific harm; "Effect? WE HAVE NO IDEA." Classic Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt; aka FUD.

mojomark 3y ago

Why do you have to launch by rocket? Why not something like spinlaunch(1), perhaps powered in situ by stored renewable energy? 1. https://www.spinlaunch.com/ https://www.spinlaunch.com/

YourCompanyHere 3y ago
sadly spinlaunch is bogus and the whole concept doesn't really work out. [0] [0] https://youtu.be/9ziGI0i9VbE https://youtu.be/9ziGI0i9VbE (Spinlaunch: BUSTED! by Thunderf00t)
- mavhc 3y ago
  Thunderf00t isn't science, it's a youtube channel who wants to get views. He also busted Starlink because apparently technology costs never reduce, and single geostationary satellites have infinite bandwidth
  - jfengel 3y ago
    YouTube channels are bogus, but he's not wrong. It's wildly unlikely. Any actual project would require not just a payload that can handle insane stresses, but also rockets for orbital insertion. Rockets that can handle those kinds of ludicrous launch stresses are hard to conceive. I can't prove that it's impossible, but the gap between the requirements and even the most extreme conception of what's feasible is so immense as to basically dismiss out of hand. They're welcome to keep trying, but it absolutely will not happen soon and is not worth the level of attention it receives.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  That video actually explicitly says that the concept _can_ work, he's just skeptical that the current company is likely to achieve it. I wasn't particularly impressed. Yeah, maybe spinlauch the entity _won't_ achieve it. Most people who try to do very hard things fail. But the only way we advance is because sometimes they don't.
inamberclad 3y ago

mardifoufs 3y ago

Talk about grasping at straws. Come on.

DennisP 3y ago

That thread claims the Starship launches for Starlink are "expected to have a significant effect on the atmosphere," but for support it links to an article about the black soot emitted by kerosene-fueled rockets like Falcon. Starship is fueled by methane, a much cleaner-burning fuel.