4 ms·

This seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge

by mort96 2y ago

This seems like a terrible idea. Satellite internet doesn't just cost money; having all those satellites in orbit have real non-monetary costs. They have a huge impact on astronomy, and they increase the probability of accidents which cause space debris.

sunshinekitty 2y ago
Except the satellites are already up and functioning, the service is available today. We will look crazy for burying thousands of miles of wires to residential in the future.
- Krutonium 2y ago
  Except we won't, because the satellites are wildly over congested and wires are, frankly, far more reliable.
- mort96 2y ago
  You can't add 10 million more subscribers and maintain broadband speeds without massively increasing the number of satellites.
_fat_santa 2y ago
Fair point though I would make a counterargument that with or without those subsidies, those satellites are still going up to space so wouldn't it be better to offer the service to as many folks as possible so that the most people get the benefit of satellites and we while we wouldn't offset the costs of putting sats up in space, at least we can offset the per-capita cost.
- mort96 2y ago
  I am 100% in favor of stricter regulations on how we use limited space resources.
wing-_-nuts 2y ago
>They have a huge impact on astronomy I'm of the opinion that commercial satellites should be required to be painted as dark as possible. If that requires extra engineering to dissipate heat, so be it.
- ghaff 2y ago
  It's reasonable that satellites should mitigate the impact on astronomy as much as possible. But it's not reasonable that we should seriously constrain the use of satellites because some astronomers using land-based optical telescopes are inconvenienced.
  - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
    How would painting a satellite black 'seriously constrain' them? Why do we let corporations foist externalities on science and the general public? Either you can engineer a solution, or you can't, and if you can't, you don't belong in space.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      I don't design satellites so I don't know. As I wrote, if there are reasonable measures that can be taken to reduce the effect of satellites on astronomers (or potentially creating space debris) they should be taken. However, there's a clear trend towards more (cheaper) satellites that serve useful purposes. And I very much doubt the public cares much about any inconveniences it presents to academics in this case.
    - umeshunni 2y ago
      Painting a satellite black wouldn't solve the problem that they would still block the stars behind them when passing overhead. Instead of light streaks, you now have dark streaks across a region of the sky.
      - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
        I mean that's like saying that a star's brightness isn't a problem when searching for exo planets, and they only block you from seeing the objects behind them. Obviously that's not true. Light pollution from orbital satellites is a real thing.
jayd16 2y ago
So for the space debris argument, is humanity just not supposed to have satellites? Like should we phase out the entire concept? Do we expect to solve the issue somehow and then open up space? Are some satellites okay and it's just a value judgment of the clear worth of one more satellite against the unquantifiable risk of possible downside?
- mort96 2y ago
  We should recognize space in orbit as precious and make intelligent decisions about how to best make use of it. That means we don't waste a ton of it just because the government can't get AT&T to build what they're paid to build.
- dfedbeef 2y ago
  The downside for astronomy is immediately quantifiable and not theoretical...

by mort96 2y ago

sunshinekitty 2y ago

Except the satellites are already up and functioning, the service is available today. We will look crazy for burying thousands of miles of wires to residential in the future.

Krutonium 2y ago
Except we won't, because the satellites are wildly over congested and wires are, frankly, far more reliable.
mort96 2y ago
You can't add 10 million more subscribers and maintain broadband speeds without massively increasing the number of satellites.

_fat_santa 2y ago

Fair point though I would make a counterargument that with or without those subsidies, those satellites are still going up to space so wouldn't it be better to offer the service to as many folks as possible so that the most people get the benefit of satellites and we while we wouldn't offset the costs of putting sats up in space, at least we can offset the per-capita cost.

mort96 2y ago
I am 100% in favor of stricter regulations on how we use limited space resources.

wing-_-nuts 2y ago

>They have a huge impact on astronomy I'm of the opinion that commercial satellites should be required to be painted as dark as possible. If that requires extra engineering to dissipate heat, so be it.

ghaff 2y ago
It's reasonable that satellites should mitigate the impact on astronomy as much as possible. But it's not reasonable that we should seriously constrain the use of satellites because some astronomers using land-based optical telescopes are inconvenienced.
- wing-_-nuts 2y ago
  How would painting a satellite black 'seriously constrain' them? Why do we let corporations foist externalities on science and the general public? Either you can engineer a solution, or you can't, and if you can't, you don't belong in space.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    I don't design satellites so I don't know. As I wrote, if there are reasonable measures that can be taken to reduce the effect of satellites on astronomers (or potentially creating space debris) they should be taken. However, there's a clear trend towards more (cheaper) satellites that serve useful purposes. And I very much doubt the public cares much about any inconveniences it presents to academics in this case.
  - umeshunni 2y ago
    Painting a satellite black wouldn't solve the problem that they would still block the stars behind them when passing overhead. Instead of light streaks, you now have dark streaks across a region of the sky.
    - wing-_-nuts 2y ago
      I mean that's like saying that a star's brightness isn't a problem when searching for exo planets, and they only block you from seeing the objects behind them. Obviously that's not true. Light pollution from orbital satellites is a real thing.

jayd16 2y ago

So for the space debris argument, is humanity just not supposed to have satellites? Like should we phase out the entire concept? Do we expect to solve the issue somehow and then open up space? Are some satellites okay and it's just a value judgment of the clear worth of one more satellite against the unquantifiable risk of possible downside?

mort96 2y ago
We should recognize space in orbit as precious and make intelligent decisions about how to best make use of it. That means we don't waste a ton of it just because the government can't get AT&T to build what they're paid to build.
dfedbeef 2y ago
The downside for astronomy is immediately quantifiable and not theoretical...