7 ms·

It’s wild that a private company was able to take up this much orbital space / night sky and the people of the earth had no say in the matter.

by ada1981 3y ago

dathos 3y ago
Is it though? Companies thinking about profit over everything else seems to be the status quo
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Good. They're regulated, so they meet non-profit objectives. As for the rest, you want them to chase profit, as that's a better way to pay for things than the government taking it from all of us.
denysvitali 3y ago
I'm not an expert in this field, but I have the feeling that 3k satellites in orbit is a small percentage of what we have at the moment. What still amazes me is that the orbit seems to not be owned by any country. Reading from another comment it looks like the FCC regulated this - but I'm still confused since it covers multiple countries, and I'm pretty sure not everyone had a saying in whether they agreed on this. As a possible future user, it's still spectacular though.
- chrisco255 3y ago
  No country owns space. There is no formal agreement on where airspace for a country ends but informally it is up to the extent of Earth's atmosphere.
  - Etherlord87 3y ago
    > informally it is up to the extent of Earth's atmosphere. And where does the atmosphere end? :) From Wikipedia[1]: Exosphere: 700 to 10,000 km (440 to 6,200 miles) The exosphere is the outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere (though it is so tenuous that some scientists consider it to be part of interplanetary space rather than part of the atmosphere). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
    - chrisco255 3y ago
      Right, it's merely a convention at this point. It's also been the case that no country has really escalated LEO warfare against another country at this point. Until then it's mere courtesy between countries. We don't quite have a solid line like we do with international waters.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  >I have the feeling that 3k satellites in orbit is a small percentage of what we have at the moment. It's less than half, but not by that much.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  There's the ITU
chrisco255 3y ago
The map makes these things appear much larger than they are at scale. There is a massive amount of space out there.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  That's what they said about IPv4 addresses. But this time there isn't even the possibility of an IPv6-like upgrade.
  - jdminhbg 3y ago
    What? Of course there is. Starlink satellites have a five year lifespan before they deorbit, and can be commanded to do so earlier if there’s an issue.
inhumantsar 3y ago
I think you might be underestimating just how big space is.
- slimebot80 3y ago
  An entire universe is quite different to a considerably more limited orbital space
modeless 3y ago
This is a bad take. There are plenty of regulatory bodies that control what SpaceX is allowed to do. The satellites are not visible to the eye in their operational orbits and are incredibly tiny compared to the vastness of space. Their depiction here is thousands of times larger than actual size.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  There are 7.8 billion people on earth. 7.5 billion of them had no say at all, and 0.33 billion of them had a tiny say via elected representatives who wrote the laws before starlink was even envisioned. I'm pretty sure if a global vote was held on the question of "Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched so you have the option of paying a US company for broadband anywhere in the world?", the vote outcome would be a firm 'No'.
  - boxed 3y ago
    If you ask the entire world you would get stupid answers to a lot of questions. "How old is the universe?" for example would get it hilariously wrong.
    - cm2187 3y ago
      Particularly given that the satellites are absolutely minuscule compared to the distances between them. People are bad at conceptualising tiny fractions.
      - hnbad 3y ago
        Not miniscule enough to not interfere with astronomy due to the exposure times and light sensitivity involved. But yes, they're not big enough to cause a "space junk preventing space travel" kind of scenario.
        Etherlord87 3y ago
        I think the 2nd statement of yours is a false dilemma: Starlink is increasing risks in space travel - a space rocket now needs (even more - otherwise it would be a false dilemma as well) maneuverability to stick to the planned path or avoid a satellite if the path changed, I don't think it's easy considering how rockets are propelled by continuous explosions, where an engine becoming disabled is somewhat normal… And of course once all goes to hell and you have a chain reaction of destroyed satellites destroying other satellites - each next satellite moves the scenario towards a positive feedback loop.
kortilla 3y ago
Imagine if you covered the surface of the earth in 30,000 cars spread out evenly (including the ocean). They would be very difficult to find visually without them reflecting light and the space used is inconsequential.
lijok 3y ago
How much of the night sky did they take up exactly?

It’s wild that a private company was able to take up this much orbital space / night sky and the people of the earth had no say in the matter.

dathos 3y ago

Is it though? Companies thinking about profit over everything else seems to be the status quo

robertlagrant 3y ago
Good. They're regulated, so they meet non-profit objectives. As for the rest, you want them to chase profit, as that's a better way to pay for things than the government taking it from all of us.

denysvitali 3y ago

I'm not an expert in this field, but I have the feeling that 3k satellites in orbit is a small percentage of what we have at the moment. What still amazes me is that the orbit seems to not be owned by any country. Reading from another comment it looks like the FCC regulated this - but I'm still confused since it covers multiple countries, and I'm pretty sure not everyone had a saying in whether they agreed on this. As a possible future user, it's still spectacular though.

chrisco255 3y ago
No country owns space. There is no formal agreement on where airspace for a country ends but informally it is up to the extent of Earth's atmosphere.
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  > informally it is up to the extent of Earth's atmosphere. And where does the atmosphere end? :) From Wikipedia[1]: Exosphere: 700 to 10,000 km (440 to 6,200 miles) The exosphere is the outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere (though it is so tenuous that some scientists consider it to be part of interplanetary space rather than part of the atmosphere). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    Right, it's merely a convention at this point. It's also been the case that no country has really escalated LEO warfare against another country at this point. Until then it's mere courtesy between countries. We don't quite have a solid line like we do with international waters.
Rebelgecko 3y ago
>I have the feeling that 3k satellites in orbit is a small percentage of what we have at the moment. It's less than half, but not by that much.
inemesitaffia 3y ago
There's the ITU

chrisco255 3y ago

The map makes these things appear much larger than they are at scale. There is a massive amount of space out there.

globular-toast 3y ago
That's what they said about IPv4 addresses. But this time there isn't even the possibility of an IPv6-like upgrade.
- jdminhbg 3y ago
  What? Of course there is. Starlink satellites have a five year lifespan before they deorbit, and can be commanded to do so earlier if there’s an issue.

inhumantsar 3y ago

I think you might be underestimating just how big space is.

slimebot80 3y ago
An entire universe is quite different to a considerably more limited orbital space

modeless 3y ago

This is a bad take. There are plenty of regulatory bodies that control what SpaceX is allowed to do. The satellites are not visible to the eye in their operational orbits and are incredibly tiny compared to the vastness of space. Their depiction here is thousands of times larger than actual size.

londons_explore 3y ago
There are 7.8 billion people on earth. 7.5 billion of them had no say at all, and 0.33 billion of them had a tiny say via elected representatives who wrote the laws before starlink was even envisioned. I'm pretty sure if a global vote was held on the question of "Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched so you have the option of paying a US company for broadband anywhere in the world?", the vote outcome would be a firm 'No'.
- boxed 3y ago
  If you ask the entire world you would get stupid answers to a lot of questions. "How old is the universe?" for example would get it hilariously wrong.
  - cm2187 3y ago
    Particularly given that the satellites are absolutely minuscule compared to the distances between them. People are bad at conceptualising tiny fractions.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      Not miniscule enough to not interfere with astronomy due to the exposure times and light sensitivity involved. But yes, they're not big enough to cause a "space junk preventing space travel" kind of scenario.
      - Etherlord87 3y ago
        I think the 2nd statement of yours is a false dilemma: Starlink is increasing risks in space travel - a space rocket now needs (even more - otherwise it would be a false dilemma as well) maneuverability to stick to the planned path or avoid a satellite if the path changed, I don't think it's easy considering how rockets are propelled by continuous explosions, where an engine becoming disabled is somewhat normal… And of course once all goes to hell and you have a chain reaction of destroyed satellites destroying other satellites - each next satellite moves the scenario towards a positive feedback loop.

kortilla 3y ago

Imagine if you covered the surface of the earth in 30,000 cars spread out evenly (including the ocean). They would be very difficult to find visually without them reflecting light and the space used is inconsequential.

lijok 3y ago

How much of the night sky did they take up exactly?