7 ms·
Deep space experts prove Starlink is interfering in scientific work
- comfypotato 3y agoThese scientists need to get over it and work around it. This article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remotely similar. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Satellite telecommunication is greatly improving life on earth. Astrophysics, not so much. Just last week there was a front page HN article about how satellites may replace undersea cables for niche use cases. Starlink is just a major player in the space. This article is trying to utilize Musk’s negative reputation to its own end. The truth of the article would have been much clearer if it simply mentioned Starlink as an example. There’s something to be said for satellites making true immersion in “natural beauty” impossible. Making that out to be negative is a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think it’s selfish to wish to hinder the massive gains in utility for humanity satellites bring.
- serf 3y ago>This article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remotely similar. This couldn’t be farther from the truth these kind of world-consequence decisions are supposed to be weighed and judged by The People In Power, rather than justified after the fact. Yes, telecoms is important; they could have justified that importance before a tribunal of people affected by the installation of the fleet. What happened instead? They did what they want, were hit with complaints, and justified the existence afterwards by A) minimizing the impact of the science (absolutely unknown and unpredictable, by the way), much like what you're doing, and B) expounded on the absolute importance of global telecom coverage (a little bit more know-able.) That's not an appropriate order of events for something that could have prolonged effects on an entire sector of research.
- rowanG077 3y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong but SpaceX did have to get approval. You can't just fire off rockets with payloads willy nilly.
- willdr 3y agoThey got approval to pollute the LEO of planet Earth? Who could you possibly go to for approval for that?
- laverya 3y agoBluntly, the people with the power to stop you from doing so. For SpaceX, that means the US government via the FCC.
- rowanG077 3y agoYes, granted by the FCC.
- c-hendricks 3y agoThe FCC is the LEO authority for the whole planet?
- wmf 3y agoThey're the authority for anything that launches from the US and that transmits on RF. If Starlink interferes with US science the FCC definitely takes that into consideration.
- aspyct 3y agoThen let that stay over the US. I'm sick of seeing my sky polluted with moving dots. "But it's not much" you'll say. Yeah, wait another 10-20 years, with all the additional shit launched into space.
- 3y ago
- tommykins 3y agoI think it's worth reading the article mate, it's talking about how they observed that satellite emissions and the effect it could have on their research and the things they do.
- Dylan16807 3y agoYour mention of satellite value gives me a thought: If spacex had to pay for the launch of 1 telescope for every 20 batches of starlink, how much use would that have compared to their interference? > Just last week there was a front page HN article about how satellites may replace undersea cables for niche use cases. They won't, that article was stupid. Edit: Or, well, you added "niche" and the article very much didn't. It's true that a tiny fraction of data might use satellites instead, but there's going to be no meaningful "replacement".
- teclordphrack2 3y ago[dead]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remotely similar. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Agree. They mention “SKAO are now in discussion with Starlink about what can be done about the interference caused by its satellites,” but fail to mention specifics. It’s obvious we aren’t going to ban LEO for this field. What can be done to mitigate the damage? Is it nontrivial? Does that require a regulatory mechanism to help pay for an enforce? Put another way, when China starts doing the same thing, what design precautions will we want them to have deployed, and how can we set the example as the first movers?
- senttoschool 3y ago> Satellite telecommunication is greatly improving life on earth. Astrophysics, not so much. Hard disagree for me. Astrophysics have previously confirmed some radical scientific theories that eventually gave rise to technology today such as Einstein’s General Relativity. Starlink has done nothing for me.
- joe__f 3y agoAstrophysics was a key starting point for discovering Newtonian mechanics, Newton was thinking about gravity and planetary motion. Hard to understate how much impact Newtonian mechanics has had on the world.
- vosper 3y agoNewton died 300 years ago. What have developments in astrophysics contributed to “real world” problems in the last 50 years?
- clouddrover 3y agoThe Global Positioning System is possible through the understanding of relativity. Einstein wasn't thinking about GPS satellites when he came up with relativity, he was just trying to understand how nature works. And a greater understanding of the fundamental workings of nature is what makes more things possible.
- vosper 3y agoOk, we’re getting closer - general relativity was 107 years ago. Anything in the last 50?
- clouddrover 3y agoRelativity has been continuously worked on for the last century. It's not "old", it's current. Gravity waves are a prediction of relativity. LIGO was built to confirm they exist. It took a long time to build LIGO and a long time to make it work. But eventually it did work in 2016 and sure enough gravity waves exist: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO Black holes are a prediction of relativity. But black holes weren't imaged until 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2319/first-image-of-a-black-hole/ https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2319/first-image-of-a... The predictive power, the depth of the results, and the work it takes to confirm the predictions of relativity is all a testament to Einstein's genius. If anything, Einstein is underrated.
- Havoc 3y agoWhile I sympathise, this is clearly happening with or without them onboard. They’ll need to find ways around the problem.
- Dylan16807 3y agoSo how much is it interfering, and how much is easy to mitigate? The limit should probably be a little higher than zero. > In a study, published in the Astronomy & Astrophysics journal, scientists used a powerful telescope in the Netherlands to observe 68 of SpaceX's satellites and detected emissions from satellites are drifting out of their allocated band, up in space. Huh? If you "use a telescope to observe the satellites", that's not proof of interference.
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y agoCould be a radio telescope
- jacquesm 3y agohttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/372136643_Unintended_electromagnetic_radiation_from_Starlink_satellites_detected_with_LOFAR_between_110_and_188_MHz https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372136643_Unintende... It is if you use LOFAR. https://www.astron.nl/telescopes/lofar/ https://www.astron.nl/telescopes/lofar/
- jabradoodle 3y ago> detected emissions from satellites are drifting out of their allocated band, up in space That part is pretty clear.
- Dylan16807 3y agoClear but not sufficient. "detectable" and "interferes with experiments" are different levels. And there are different thresholds for "interferes". This applies to the bands it's supposed to be in, and to the bands it's not supposed to be in.
- entropicgravity 3y agoSure, but so do clouds. It's a trade off and with the US military as a customer for Starlink the deep space experts are unlikely to prevail.