4 ms·

What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity. Just to keep astronomers happy, which would be better off using space based

by rapsey 2y ago

What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity. Just to keep astronomers happy, which would be better off using space based telescopes anyway.

defrost 2y ago
Then the world would likely get by just fine with ground based optic fibre to urban areas and along highways to remote area hubs with people in truly remote areas getting by just as they have done since homo sapians first banged rocks together.
- rapsey 2y ago
  Starlink has millions of customers mostly in the developed world because existing solutions are non existent, terrible or cost prohibitive.
  - defrost 2y ago
    and up until this point in time they were unable to navigate, to read news, to feed themselves? There are billions of people in the world and no shortage of internet hot spots for those that need them. Many people, myself included, grew up without internet connectivity and still managed somehow to get math degrees and write several million unique SLOC lines to backbone GIS, networking, crypto and the like.
    - rapsey 2y ago
      Millions also got by without electricity before the grid was developed. It did not keep them from becoming great men. But it did keep them from technological progress and kept women chained to the household.
_djo_ 2y ago
This is not "just to keep astronomers happy", because the science gleaned from astronomy benefits all of us, and relying solely on space-based telescopes is far from feasible. For things like the Square Kilometre Array it's simply impossible to place them in space using current technology, and satellite constellations that leak too much unnecessary RF energy will destroy the investment we've made in them. That also doesn't take into account things like space weather monitoring and forecasting, which also relies on highly sensitive distributed earth-based receivers. Good regulation allows for both progress and an avoidance of a tragedy of the commons situation where unregulated satellites emit so much unnecessary RF energy that ground-based radio astronomy becomes impossible.
- InsomniacL 2y ago
  > it's simply impossible to place them in space I bet once it's no longer practicable to host them on Earth, hosting them in space will become possible. Sometimes, removing the easy option gets people solving problems they had no incentive to solve previously, and this can lead better outcomes. obviously other times that doesn't happen but I'm an optimist.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    No, it'll just mean we get less astronomy done, because the cost of doing any sort of astronomy will be far more expensive and the opportunities much more limited. The SKA is already an enormously expensive project that took decades to create and is at the very edge of our signal processing capabilities even using the highest capacity fibre-optic data networks and supercomputers. Deploying the same type of array in space is decades away at current technology levels.
JohnFen 2y ago
> What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity. What if? It appears that we collectively need to decide what uses we prefer. > Just to keep astronomers happy, which would be better off using space based telescopes anyway. Alternatively, why seriously restrict the ability to engage in research just because some people want to be able to talk directly to a satellite from their cell phone? The reality is that nobody is going to get everything they want out of this. Compromise is required, and compromise means that nobody is going to be entirely happy.
GJim 2y ago
> What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity Regulators don't "just" block things for shits and giggles. They act because there is a need to do so; their acts formed by a consensus. (I feel like I'm explaining this to a child).

by rapsey 2y ago

What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity. Just to keep astronomers happy, which would be better off using space based telescopes anyway.

defrost 2y ago

Then the world would likely get by just fine with ground based optic fibre to urban areas and along highways to remote area hubs with people in truly remote areas getting by just as they have done since homo sapians first banged rocks together.

rapsey 2y ago
Starlink has millions of customers mostly in the developed world because existing solutions are non existent, terrible or cost prohibitive.
- defrost 2y ago
  and up until this point in time they were unable to navigate, to read news, to feed themselves? There are billions of people in the world and no shortage of internet hot spots for those that need them. Many people, myself included, grew up without internet connectivity and still managed somehow to get math degrees and write several million unique SLOC lines to backbone GIS, networking, crypto and the like.
  - rapsey 2y ago
    Millions also got by without electricity before the grid was developed. It did not keep them from becoming great men. But it did keep them from technological progress and kept women chained to the household.

_djo_ 2y ago

This is not "just to keep astronomers happy", because the science gleaned from astronomy benefits all of us, and relying solely on space-based telescopes is far from feasible. For things like the Square Kilometre Array it's simply impossible to place them in space using current technology, and satellite constellations that leak too much unnecessary RF energy will destroy the investment we've made in them. That also doesn't take into account things like space weather monitoring and forecasting, which also relies on highly sensitive distributed earth-based receivers. Good regulation allows for both progress and an avoidance of a tragedy of the commons situation where unregulated satellites emit so much unnecessary RF energy that ground-based radio astronomy becomes impossible.

InsomniacL 2y ago
> it's simply impossible to place them in space I bet once it's no longer practicable to host them on Earth, hosting them in space will become possible. Sometimes, removing the easy option gets people solving problems they had no incentive to solve previously, and this can lead better outcomes. obviously other times that doesn't happen but I'm an optimist.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  No, it'll just mean we get less astronomy done, because the cost of doing any sort of astronomy will be far more expensive and the opportunities much more limited. The SKA is already an enormously expensive project that took decades to create and is at the very edge of our signal processing capabilities even using the highest capacity fibre-optic data networks and supercomputers. Deploying the same type of array in space is decades away at current technology levels.

JohnFen 2y ago

> What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity. What if? It appears that we collectively need to decide what uses we prefer. > Just to keep astronomers happy, which would be better off using space based telescopes anyway. Alternatively, why seriously restrict the ability to engage in research just because some people want to be able to talk directly to a satellite from their cell phone? The reality is that nobody is going to get everything they want out of this. Compromise is required, and compromise means that nobody is going to be entirely happy.

GJim 2y ago

> What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity Regulators don't "just" block things for shits and giggles. They act because there is a need to do so; their acts formed by a consensus. (I feel like I'm explaining this to a child).