7 ms·
I'm surprised that getting our low space to this state was even legal
by ikari_pl 3mo ago
I'm surprised that getting our low space to this state was even legal
- vachina 3mo agoUS runs the show. Anything is possible.
- signatoremo 3mo agoIf that was true China wouldn’t be able to launch as much as they have done
- vachina 3mo agoUS will allow you to play in their playground up to a certain point. China’s experiments wont result in a threat.
- vixen99 3mo agoMeanwhile: Is this true? 'Secret military documents from clandestine forums between Russia and China have revealed a possible joint strategic plan to disable Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network alongside a deep weapons development partnership spanning hypersonic missile defense and autonomous drones, The Insider reported on July 9.' https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/09/russia-and-china-discussed-plans-to-destroy-starlink-satellites-and-develop-a-joint-air-defense-system-the-insider-reports https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/09/russia-and-china-discus...
- iknowstuff 3mo agoThere’s a lot of space in space. This is not to scale.
- krige 3mo agoThere's a lot of space in air, and yet we have multiple midair collisions every year.
- lnenad 3mo agoSurface of a sphere (spheroid) is the square of the diameter. Planes fly at ~10kms, satellites at orders of magnitude higher.
- pgalvin 3mo agoHowever, the Earth’s own radius dwarfs the height of LEO, so they’re actually roughly the same. There are other reasons we don’t currently experience major problems with collisions in space, and why airplanes sometimes do, but it is not this.
- lnenad 3mo agoRespectfully disagree as you're comparing the surface to the size of the object, so it definitely matters. Here's some math: Average Earth diameter: 12742kms + 10km Average airplane surface area = 500m2 12752^2*pi = 510,865,389km2 Surface flight/plane = 1021730 planes Starlink orbit height = ~500km Surface at orbit = ~551,712,377 so ~8% increase (which is non-negligible) Average Starlink satellite surface area = ~7m2 Surface LEO/satelite = 78816053 satellites (77x compared to airplanes) Daily flights 50k-100k. Total number of satellites <20k. And this is only for Starlink LEO. If you go for higher orbits the surface grows substantially. Also satellites have predictable paths, altitudes, airplanes maneuver and turn, gain altitude/lose altitude. They gather around points (airfields) etc...
- Dig1t 3mo agoWhy would it be illegal? There are virtually zero drawbacks and huge advantages to these satellites. They are not rendered to scale either, in reality they are minuscule compared to the amount of available space. There’s room for millions more spacecraft.
- sfblah 3mo agoI think it's fair to classify the advantages as "modest" not "huge." Yes, it's cool that sailboats in the middle of the Pacific can get Internet, but the vast majority of Internet users are still connected via fiber or copper. And, arguably, the existence of Starlink could enable governments to cease the rollout of terrestrial Internet, which is a modest drawback to the technology. I've also seen reports that, as the satellites become overburdened, speeds are pretty variable. Again, not saying it's a net negative, but I just don't think there are "huge advantages" to Starlink.
- vessenes 3mo agoAs someone who worked and briefly lived in subsaharan Africa, I will say that the advantages are huge. Bandwidth alone isn't even the whole story - latency really matters too, another area where Starlink is super helpful compared to say, trying to get fiber punched in west from the southeastern parts of Africa. I have not yet mentioned the benefits of state actors not being able to cut your fiber at sea where nobody can see them.
- vachina 3mo agoFantastic now you can browse TikTok in the middle of the desert.
- vessenes 3mo agoFrom the community guidelines: Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously I'd add to your list...Or do Khan Academy, learn how to purify water, find out recent grain prices a 10 hour drive away, decide if your baby's rash needs an expensive trip in to town, and so on.
- po1nt 3mo agoI'm sometimes baffled how people's knee jerk reaction is to think how to ban this. And yet those same people complain about their parents that claimed that Rock'n'Roll or DnD should be banned because it's satanic. This is literally the coolest thing we as a species achieved that doesn't serve self-preservation purposes.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- vachina 3mo agoProblem is this capability is concentrated in the hands of 1. A private company. 2. Of a single country with inconsistent leaders. I’d be less anxious if Europe had this capability instead.
- inemesitaffia 3mo agoEurope isn't the sort of place that would develop this capability
- dredmorbius 3mo agoFrance has Eutelsat: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat>. Germany had SES/Astra: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_Astra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_Astra>. The EU as a whole as the Galileo satnav / GPS project: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation_...>. There are numerous other EU satellite comms providers, though most are aimed at commercial/broadcast services. That's a departure point for satellite-phone or satellite-internet, however. Europe can and has developed similar and/or precursor capabilities.
- DoesntMatter22 3mo agoThe EU can technically do it but they won’t. Starlink dwarfs all the services you mentioned. The EU doesn’t even believe in air conditioning much less making a robust satellite network
- dtagames 3mo agoIt was never "legal" but it wasn't specifically illegal either. Space-based businesses are hoping to grandfather themselves in once laws are established about the use of space, and betting that by then whatever service they offer will be seen as indispensable.
- Svoka 3mo agoThat is not how orbital mechanics work.