5 ms·

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 operatio

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.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > 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 There is no orbital solution in which this happens to any meaningful extent. Even worst-case scenarios of massive anti-satellite activity create localised messes that clear in a few months.
        Etherlord87 3y ago
        From Wikipedia[1]: One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
        AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
        [dead]
        hnbad 3y ago
        From the same article: > However, even a catastrophic Kessler scenario at LEO would pose minimal risk for launches continuing past LEO, or satellites travelling at medium Earth orbit (MEO) or geosynchronous orbit (GEO). The catastrophic scenarios predict an increase in the number of collisions per year, as opposed to a physically impassable barrier to space exploration that occurs in higher orbits. There's also a statement by SpaceX about why Starlink won't cause this but that's not worth the paper it's printed on given that SpaceX would of course say that. It does sound like the Kessler syndrome risk is higher for heavier, higher orbit satellites so a more likely issue would be a higher orbit satellite starting a debris cascade that could take out Starlink (and cause Kessler syndrome) rather than Starlink satellites going haywire and causing the cascade themselves.
    - Etherlord87 3y ago
      You can see them with a naked eye so it's not that minuscule. Either just before sunrise or just after sunset, when the sky is black, and so your eye adapts and you start to see things otherwise too dark to be visible on the sky (stars), the Starlink satellites reflect the light from the Sun (because they are higher than you and so their daylight is longer, earlier sunrise, later sunset).
      - boxed 3y ago
        You can see a star with the naked eye even though it coverers no space on the sky. The size is not relevant.
  - mihaic 3y ago
    You're mixing up matters of logic and fact (how old the universe is) with matters of personal preference (like what I want to eat, should flying cars fill the skyline of my city). People can be trusted a lot more in the second category, which is generally also their right. If they have valid concerns that are getting dismissed, they're not gonna like talking to you.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      Some, but not all
    - boxed 3y ago
      Citation needed. You can probably ask a few followup questions for many stated preferences and watch the preference fall into dust. I know personally that when I chose from menus at restaurants I am hilariously bad at picking what I like, while my wife is consistently better at choosing what I like.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      A bad faith reading of the comment would be against the commenting guidelines. Besides, is there any democracy on Earth which doesn't disenfranchise the vast majority of the human race who aren't citizens of that democracy? The whole world never gets to vote on things like this, or anything of real consequence. It seems to me that this whole line of critique amounts to a big pout that SpaceX hasn't deferred to a nonexistent global democratic government.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > bad faith reading of this comment would suggest you're opposed to the concept of democracy Elections everywhere for everything isn’t democracy, it’s tyranny of the majority. Western thinkers have been writing about this since the Athenians.
      - hnbad 3y ago
        That's a very muddled explanation of the concepts you're referencing. Direct democracy (i.e. "elections everywhere for everything") is democratic. The "tyranny of the majority" is a problem of top-down (i.e. hierarchical) organizational structures. Making these structures less democratic doesn't eliminate the tyranny, it just removes the "of the majority" part. The concept regained popularity in the past century thanks to Ayn Rand because of the libertarian idea that individual excellence is held back by the mediocracy of the masses (based on the discredited Great Man narrative of history). "Western thinkers" implies a consensus and persistence that is not there. The antidote to tyranny is bottom-up (i.e. anarchic) organizing with consent-based decision making. There are still edge case but many of them can be resolved with axioms like the right to self-defense (e.g. a rapist might not consent to being prevented from raping you but your right not to be raped trumps their right to rape you). It's worth keeping in mind that while a state can claim to attempt to resolve the contradiction of preventing the "tyranny of the majority" while maintaining "democratic rule" the state is inherently tyrannical (i.e. you can't consent to being its subject) and its power over its subjects is only limited by limitations it sets for itself. Absolute democracy would require abolition of the state whereas absolute tyranny would require abolition of the "democratic rule" it uses to justify itself. A state always requires a ruling class, be it a demographic majority, a majority of capital, an aristocracy or a dynasty. In other words: yes, ideally, all humans affected by a decision should be asked to consent to that decision (which is distinct from supporting it, if you're unfamiliar with this nuance - think of it as "support or abstain").
- danw1979 3y ago
  You could ask a less leading question, like “would you like it if you had the ability to rent infrastructure to get access to a much better internet connection that your local ISPs, and even your own government have no chance of building themselves ?” I’m British, so this question definitely applies to me, by the way.
  - mikro2nd 3y ago
    For a good portion of the world I think you'd have to add, "...at a price roughly equal to [insert large percentage, in places exceeding 100%] your monthly income," to get a more realisic response.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      When it comes to global topics, I think a lot of people in high income countries often forget that we live in a privileged bubble. 7% of the world has a college degree. The median full-time fast food worker in the US is in the top 6% income, globally.
    - danw1979 3y ago
      I think in the places you’re thinking of, using starlink as backhaul for community wireless is more likely ? There’s always going to be capex to bring the internet to far-flung places, but my point was that starlink means it’s no longer “dig a 100km trench and install a fibre” expensive.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago
  They'd also vote to end gay rights
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  What alternative do you propose? To do nothing? We organize into democracies, where everyone votes on representatives, which rule the controlling institutions giving permissions (or not) for such undertakings. It's surprising to me so many people are angry over the sky being polluted visually, and not over common air poisoning by burning fuel, river pollution by dumping waste, ocean and sea pollution by ship transportation, plastic pollution, and many other... Rain water is already above (arbitrary) safe toxicity level and so shouldn't be drunk... So what you're doing is you're in a house fire and complain on some noise. This doesn't mean of course you're wrong: the pollution is a problem to astronomers and to the safety of space ventures.
- MRtecno98 3y ago
  > I'm pretty sure the vote would be a firm "No" So... you're critizing having no elections by assuming the outcome of one based purely on personal intuition? I think you're making the same mistake you seem to criticize. Also just think about the impracticality of doing something like that and at the same time the fact that of that 7.5B, 90% probably wouldn't care. How many complaints about starlink have you received from, idk, China or Zimbawe or rural Russia?
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  This is literally how it has been since the start of the space age. For people outside of the US or Russia, not having any say in what happens in space is normal. The only difference here is that Americans are surprised when they themselves have to go through the same thing, but even then the American government has full control of starlink for all intents and purposes. It's always funny to me when I see this "7.8 billion people didn't choose a private corporation", as if they chose the american government lol.
- modeless 3y ago
  There are a lot of good reasons we don't have worldwide direct democracy for everything... And it's absolutely not true that the US is the only country that has a say here. International regulatory bodies exist as well. Maybe the citizens of some countries don't have effective governments that express their will at the UN but that's not SpaceX's fault. There is a process to have everyone's voice heard. It's not the wild west. And I think you underestimate how much people like and want truly global wireless internet service. The value to the world is enormous.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Presuming that you translated it to every language: * 3 billion people don't care because they don't use the internet * 7 billion people don't care because they wouldn't be able to afford it anyway * 7 billion people don't care because the question doesn't make much sense to them nor do they really understand what it is about * 4 billion people likely won't participate because voting is not an activity they are familiar with and/or is not something they desire to participate in. Direct democracy also has a pretty bad track record in producing just, principled, and reasoned results.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    > X billion people don't care because they don't use the internet/can't afford But nearly all 7.8 billion live under the night sky and see 'moving stars'. And that's why I think a global vote would come out saying 'no'.
    - inemesitaffia 3y ago
      You'd also get a no to gay and trans rights
    - kube-system 3y ago
      Vanishingly few of those people have any idea what a satellite is, let alone that they may be visible in the night sky. The vast majority of the global population leans on religion or superstition to explain natural phenomenon. If you know what a star even is, you're in the minority. You might as well flip a coin, because very few people on the planet would even understand the question. I think you're right that the vote would be no, but not for the same reason you do. I think many people reading: > Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched ... would stop right there and say "I have no idea what that is, so no"

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.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > 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 There is no orbital solution in which this happens to any meaningful extent. Even worst-case scenarios of massive anti-satellite activity create localised messes that clear in a few months.
        Etherlord87 3y ago
        From Wikipedia[1]: One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
        AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
        [dead]
        hnbad 3y ago
        From the same article: > However, even a catastrophic Kessler scenario at LEO would pose minimal risk for launches continuing past LEO, or satellites travelling at medium Earth orbit (MEO) or geosynchronous orbit (GEO). The catastrophic scenarios predict an increase in the number of collisions per year, as opposed to a physically impassable barrier to space exploration that occurs in higher orbits. There's also a statement by SpaceX about why Starlink won't cause this but that's not worth the paper it's printed on given that SpaceX would of course say that. It does sound like the Kessler syndrome risk is higher for heavier, higher orbit satellites so a more likely issue would be a higher orbit satellite starting a debris cascade that could take out Starlink (and cause Kessler syndrome) rather than Starlink satellites going haywire and causing the cascade themselves.
  - Etherlord87 3y ago
    You can see them with a naked eye so it's not that minuscule. Either just before sunrise or just after sunset, when the sky is black, and so your eye adapts and you start to see things otherwise too dark to be visible on the sky (stars), the Starlink satellites reflect the light from the Sun (because they are higher than you and so their daylight is longer, earlier sunrise, later sunset).
    - boxed 3y ago
      You can see a star with the naked eye even though it coverers no space on the sky. The size is not relevant.
- mihaic 3y ago
  You're mixing up matters of logic and fact (how old the universe is) with matters of personal preference (like what I want to eat, should flying cars fill the skyline of my city). People can be trusted a lot more in the second category, which is generally also their right. If they have valid concerns that are getting dismissed, they're not gonna like talking to you.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    Some, but not all
  - boxed 3y ago
    Citation needed. You can probably ask a few followup questions for many stated preferences and watch the preference fall into dust. I know personally that when I chose from menus at restaurants I am hilariously bad at picking what I like, while my wife is consistently better at choosing what I like.
- hnbad 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    A bad faith reading of the comment would be against the commenting guidelines. Besides, is there any democracy on Earth which doesn't disenfranchise the vast majority of the human race who aren't citizens of that democracy? The whole world never gets to vote on things like this, or anything of real consequence. It seems to me that this whole line of critique amounts to a big pout that SpaceX hasn't deferred to a nonexistent global democratic government.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > bad faith reading of this comment would suggest you're opposed to the concept of democracy Elections everywhere for everything isn’t democracy, it’s tyranny of the majority. Western thinkers have been writing about this since the Athenians.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      That's a very muddled explanation of the concepts you're referencing. Direct democracy (i.e. "elections everywhere for everything") is democratic. The "tyranny of the majority" is a problem of top-down (i.e. hierarchical) organizational structures. Making these structures less democratic doesn't eliminate the tyranny, it just removes the "of the majority" part. The concept regained popularity in the past century thanks to Ayn Rand because of the libertarian idea that individual excellence is held back by the mediocracy of the masses (based on the discredited Great Man narrative of history). "Western thinkers" implies a consensus and persistence that is not there. The antidote to tyranny is bottom-up (i.e. anarchic) organizing with consent-based decision making. There are still edge case but many of them can be resolved with axioms like the right to self-defense (e.g. a rapist might not consent to being prevented from raping you but your right not to be raped trumps their right to rape you). It's worth keeping in mind that while a state can claim to attempt to resolve the contradiction of preventing the "tyranny of the majority" while maintaining "democratic rule" the state is inherently tyrannical (i.e. you can't consent to being its subject) and its power over its subjects is only limited by limitations it sets for itself. Absolute democracy would require abolition of the state whereas absolute tyranny would require abolition of the "democratic rule" it uses to justify itself. A state always requires a ruling class, be it a demographic majority, a majority of capital, an aristocracy or a dynasty. In other words: yes, ideally, all humans affected by a decision should be asked to consent to that decision (which is distinct from supporting it, if you're unfamiliar with this nuance - think of it as "support or abstain").
danw1979 3y ago
You could ask a less leading question, like “would you like it if you had the ability to rent infrastructure to get access to a much better internet connection that your local ISPs, and even your own government have no chance of building themselves ?” I’m British, so this question definitely applies to me, by the way.
- mikro2nd 3y ago
  For a good portion of the world I think you'd have to add, "...at a price roughly equal to [insert large percentage, in places exceeding 100%] your monthly income," to get a more realisic response.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    When it comes to global topics, I think a lot of people in high income countries often forget that we live in a privileged bubble. 7% of the world has a college degree. The median full-time fast food worker in the US is in the top 6% income, globally.
  - danw1979 3y ago
    I think in the places you’re thinking of, using starlink as backhaul for community wireless is more likely ? There’s always going to be capex to bring the internet to far-flung places, but my point was that starlink means it’s no longer “dig a 100km trench and install a fibre” expensive.
inemesitaffia 3y ago
They'd also vote to end gay rights
Etherlord87 3y ago
What alternative do you propose? To do nothing? We organize into democracies, where everyone votes on representatives, which rule the controlling institutions giving permissions (or not) for such undertakings. It's surprising to me so many people are angry over the sky being polluted visually, and not over common air poisoning by burning fuel, river pollution by dumping waste, ocean and sea pollution by ship transportation, plastic pollution, and many other... Rain water is already above (arbitrary) safe toxicity level and so shouldn't be drunk... So what you're doing is you're in a house fire and complain on some noise. This doesn't mean of course you're wrong: the pollution is a problem to astronomers and to the safety of space ventures.
MRtecno98 3y ago
> I'm pretty sure the vote would be a firm "No" So... you're critizing having no elections by assuming the outcome of one based purely on personal intuition? I think you're making the same mistake you seem to criticize. Also just think about the impracticality of doing something like that and at the same time the fact that of that 7.5B, 90% probably wouldn't care. How many complaints about starlink have you received from, idk, China or Zimbawe or rural Russia?
mardifoufs 3y ago
This is literally how it has been since the start of the space age. For people outside of the US or Russia, not having any say in what happens in space is normal. The only difference here is that Americans are surprised when they themselves have to go through the same thing, but even then the American government has full control of starlink for all intents and purposes. It's always funny to me when I see this "7.8 billion people didn't choose a private corporation", as if they chose the american government lol.
modeless 3y ago
There are a lot of good reasons we don't have worldwide direct democracy for everything... And it's absolutely not true that the US is the only country that has a say here. International regulatory bodies exist as well. Maybe the citizens of some countries don't have effective governments that express their will at the UN but that's not SpaceX's fault. There is a process to have everyone's voice heard. It's not the wild west. And I think you underestimate how much people like and want truly global wireless internet service. The value to the world is enormous.
kube-system 3y ago
Presuming that you translated it to every language: * 3 billion people don't care because they don't use the internet * 7 billion people don't care because they wouldn't be able to afford it anyway * 7 billion people don't care because the question doesn't make much sense to them nor do they really understand what it is about * 4 billion people likely won't participate because voting is not an activity they are familiar with and/or is not something they desire to participate in. Direct democracy also has a pretty bad track record in producing just, principled, and reasoned results.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  > X billion people don't care because they don't use the internet/can't afford But nearly all 7.8 billion live under the night sky and see 'moving stars'. And that's why I think a global vote would come out saying 'no'.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago
    You'd also get a no to gay and trans rights
  - kube-system 3y ago
    Vanishingly few of those people have any idea what a satellite is, let alone that they may be visible in the night sky. The vast majority of the global population leans on religion or superstition to explain natural phenomenon. If you know what a star even is, you're in the minority. You might as well flip a coin, because very few people on the planet would even understand the question. I think you're right that the vote would be no, but not for the same reason you do. I think many people reading: > Would you like to have 10,000 satellites launched ... would stop right there and say "I have no idea what that is, so no"