4 ms·

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.
            • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
              > sound like the Kessler syndrome risk is higher for heavier, higher orbit satellites A Kessler scenario, not syndrome. Localised to a set of orbits within which you see a rise of collisions. The number of affected orbits doesn’t increase for more than a few months, at which point the problem is constrained within space.
          • JumpCrisscross 3y ago
            > the distribution of debris in orbit could render space activities and the use of satellites in specific orbital ranges difficult for many generations Sure, if you overload a high orbit you could render it unusable for a long time. In its worst case, it’s still highly localised. Congestion in LEO has tradeoffs, but Kessler syndrome (much less a scenario) isn’t one of them.
      • MRtecno98 3y ago
        Starlink satellites naturally decay into unstable orbits after 5 years without boost-backs
    • boxed 3y ago
      They reflect enough light. This is different from them occupying significant space. Stars on the night sky for example can be visible with the naked eye but were you to travel 9/10th the way towards them they would STILL appear the exact same size to your eye.
  • 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").