6 ms·

This doesn't sound good, lets stop him everyone. Any ideas?

by colesantiago 2y ago

Suppafly 2y ago
>This doesn't sound good, lets stop him everyone. Why?
- colesantiago 2y ago
  Asking why isn't really an idea, but if you must know. I don't think it's a good thing that one person controls a lot of active satellites.
  - defrost 2y ago
    If you divide them up by size, function, power, onboard nuclear sources, etc then Musk controls one single type of satellite, an internet repeater constellation. And others are putting up rival constellations. There are disproportionately many sats in Starlink but they're small, low orbit, limited lifespan, and all do the exact same thing (save for any dark lifts on behalf of the US DoD .. which Musk wouldn't control). No far orbit geosync's, no killer sats (that we know of) no mapping, multispectral, deep space viewing, etc. platforms.
    - b112 2y ago
      Speaking of mapping, I often wonder what's the case these days. Used to be you could see great detail in even the late 80s via military satellites. Now there are infinitely more, launch is cheap, and image capture tech for "unlimited budget" types is insanely high. I can imagine mega-high resolution images via satellites with camera banks, consisting of thousands of cameras per satellite. Imagine having a 24x7, 365 capture of the entire planet at mega-high, multi-spectral resolution. Not sure if we're there yet, but we will be. And at such points, especially with computing power, you could track all vehicle traffic down to the individual. Differing spectrum provide for views at night and through clouds. Anyhow. Just a thought.
      - defrost 2y ago
        The sun is feakishly hot in space, the dak side chillingly cold. Great instrumentation (visual optics or multispectral sensing) needs good focusing (lens stacks, etc) with thermally stable dimensions (chuck it from freezer into the path of flame thrower, minimal expansion) .. and other quirks of space. The mapping platform sats tend to be a bit bigger and take tens of thousands of skilled sat Engineer (physical engineer types, not just software) hours to craft and test. Tens of thousands of off the shelf iPhones in orbit, even LEO, just isn't going to provide high resolution backyard photos allowing you count people at a BBQ.
        b112 2y ago
        Sure, the above is traditionally true. Yet deep pockets solves some of these issues, and producing a lot of these cameras reduces per unit costs. Material advancements can reduce size and other issues too. But think not just now, but soon. And unless the argument is "we can never do this as tech improves", deep pockets and time makes all possible. So the question remains "what if", not "attempt to prove this is impossible currently". What if, once tagged, the movement of all humans outside was tracked, even on foot. Inside has cameras already, dense cities too. It's a capability gap being met.
  - b112 2y ago
    Asking why isn't really an idea So we may only reply if we support your attempts to stop him? That's not how this sort of thing works. I don't think it's a good thing that one person controls a lot of active satellites. Why? You're asking people to actively work at sabotaging things, without giving any other reasons than "I don't like this". Not even a hypothetical reason why. Just "I don't like it".
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    But why do you think it's a problem? They are basic satellites used for starlink internet, there are a ton of them, but they aren't doing much objectively.

This doesn't sound good, lets stop him everyone. Any ideas?

Suppafly 2y ago

>This doesn't sound good, lets stop him everyone. Why?

colesantiago 2y ago
Asking why isn't really an idea, but if you must know. I don't think it's a good thing that one person controls a lot of active satellites.
- defrost 2y ago
  If you divide them up by size, function, power, onboard nuclear sources, etc then Musk controls one single type of satellite, an internet repeater constellation. And others are putting up rival constellations. There are disproportionately many sats in Starlink but they're small, low orbit, limited lifespan, and all do the exact same thing (save for any dark lifts on behalf of the US DoD .. which Musk wouldn't control). No far orbit geosync's, no killer sats (that we know of) no mapping, multispectral, deep space viewing, etc. platforms.
  - b112 2y ago
    Speaking of mapping, I often wonder what's the case these days. Used to be you could see great detail in even the late 80s via military satellites. Now there are infinitely more, launch is cheap, and image capture tech for "unlimited budget" types is insanely high. I can imagine mega-high resolution images via satellites with camera banks, consisting of thousands of cameras per satellite. Imagine having a 24x7, 365 capture of the entire planet at mega-high, multi-spectral resolution. Not sure if we're there yet, but we will be. And at such points, especially with computing power, you could track all vehicle traffic down to the individual. Differing spectrum provide for views at night and through clouds. Anyhow. Just a thought.
    - defrost 2y ago
      The sun is feakishly hot in space, the dak side chillingly cold. Great instrumentation (visual optics or multispectral sensing) needs good focusing (lens stacks, etc) with thermally stable dimensions (chuck it from freezer into the path of flame thrower, minimal expansion) .. and other quirks of space. The mapping platform sats tend to be a bit bigger and take tens of thousands of skilled sat Engineer (physical engineer types, not just software) hours to craft and test. Tens of thousands of off the shelf iPhones in orbit, even LEO, just isn't going to provide high resolution backyard photos allowing you count people at a BBQ.
      - b112 2y ago
        Sure, the above is traditionally true. Yet deep pockets solves some of these issues, and producing a lot of these cameras reduces per unit costs. Material advancements can reduce size and other issues too. But think not just now, but soon. And unless the argument is "we can never do this as tech improves", deep pockets and time makes all possible. So the question remains "what if", not "attempt to prove this is impossible currently". What if, once tagged, the movement of all humans outside was tracked, even on foot. Inside has cameras already, dense cities too. It's a capability gap being met.
- b112 2y ago
  Asking why isn't really an idea So we may only reply if we support your attempts to stop him? That's not how this sort of thing works. I don't think it's a good thing that one person controls a lot of active satellites. Why? You're asking people to actively work at sabotaging things, without giving any other reasons than "I don't like this". Not even a hypothetical reason why. Just "I don't like it".
- Suppafly 2y ago
  But why do you think it's a problem? They are basic satellites used for starlink internet, there are a ton of them, but they aren't doing much objectively.