this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
1048 points (97.8% liked)

Microblog Memes

5402 readers
3146 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 16 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

We could and should be doing both ground and orbital radio telescope observations. One really interesting idea I've seen floated is to put one on the far-side of the moon; it'd be shielded from all our radio emissions but, of course, it would be somewhat suspectable to interference from the sun for weeks at a time.

What I've never understood about Starlink is how it's better than existing satellite internet beamed from geosynchronous craft... like, geosync is crowded (especially over North America and Europe), but it's not so crowded we couldn't put a couple more transponders up there. Objects in geosync rarely have the astronomical side effects that Starlink is apparently causing. It would even solve the Starlink issue of having to have an expense af receiver with active tracking... just nail up a stationary ku-band dish that doesn't need to move ever. This is already solved technology.

[–] i_stole_ur_taco@lemmy.ca 20 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

The problem with geosynchronous orbit is that you need to be at a high altitude to maintain it. That increases the packet round trip time to a receiver on the ground. Starlink satellites orbit low enough to give a theoretical 20ms ping. A geostationary satellite would be at best 500ms. It’s fine for some tasks but lousy for applications that need low latency, like video calling.

[–] TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Is there any way to improve that? Or is it a hard limit due to physics?

[–] booly@sh.itjust.works 6 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

The geosynchronous satellites are about ~~650~~ 65 times higher than Starlink satellites, so the speed of light is a significant limiting factor.

Geosynchronous orbit is 35,700 km (3.57 x 10^7 m) above sea level. At that distance, signals moving at the speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) take about .12 seconds to go that far. So a round trip is about .240 seconds or 240 milliseconds added to the ping.

Starlink orbits at an altitude of 550 km (5.5 x 10^5 m), where the signal can travel between ground and satellite in about 0.0018 seconds, for 3.6 millisecond round trip. Actual routing and processing of signals, especially relaying between satellites, adds time to the processing.

But no matter how much better the signal processing can get, the speed of light accounts for about a 200-230 millisecond difference at the difference in altitudes.

[–] DesertCreosote@lemm.ee 8 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Unfortunately it’s a hard limit due to the speed of light. Theoretically you could use quantum entanglement to get around it, but then of course you wouldn’t need the satellites anymore.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

no, you couldn't. You can't use quantum entanglement to send information. Only random noise.

[–] DesertCreosote@lemm.ee 5 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

Sorry, I meant theoretically as in “at some distant point in the future where we’ve figured out how to make it work.” I probably read too much science fiction.

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

In real life, all quantum entanglement means is that you can entangle two particles, move them away from each other, and still know that when you measure one, the other will have the opposite value. It's akin to putting a red ball in one box and a blue ball in another, then muddling them up and posting them to two addresses. When opening one box, you instantly know that because you saw a red ball, the other recipient has a blue one or vice versa, but that's it. The extra quantum bit is just that the particles still do quantum things as if they're a maybe-red-maybe-blue superposition until they're measured. That's like having a sniffer dog at the post office that flags half of all things with red paint and a quarter of all things with blue paint as needing to be diverted to the police magically redirect three eighths of each colour instead of different amounts of the two colours. The balls didn't decide which was red and which was blue until the boxes were opened, but the choice always matches.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

Science fiction quantum entanglement is not the same as real life quantum entanglement. Science fiction has spooky action at a distance, real life doesn't.

The speed of light is the speed of causality, the speed of information. It is physically impossible to send information at speeds greater than the speed of light.

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 18 hours ago

it physically cannot work. ever. That's just how entanglement works. We know that much.

That's not true either unfortunately

[–] freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world -3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

In the past 6 months, Starlink satellites made 50,000 collision avoidance maneuvers. They now maneuver 275 times a day to avoid crashing into other space objects.

They use an on board AI to calculate the positions, but each time they course-correct, it throws off forecasting accuracy for several days. So a collision isn't an if, it's a when, and suddenly we're in Kessler Syndrome territory. Or maybe enough people will eventually wake up and realize Musk was an actual idiot all along.

But until then, great, low pings for video calls. Hurray.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

This is completely factually inaccurate. 2 minutes on Google will help you learn but seeing as how you’ve been spewing crap all over this thread I don’t think it’s worth my time to even bother helping you understand.

[–] VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Search the web for “starlink Kessler syndrome”. It’s very well documented. It’s also discussed elsewhere in this thread.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 5 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Can you debunk it for the rest of us?

[–] ebc@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

Shortest answer is that even if all Starlink satellites suddently exploded at the same time for no reason, they'd fall back to Earth in a matter of weeks. They're waaaay lower than the other satellites you're thinking of (see discussion on geo-stationary satellites for why), so they need to be actively pushed every few days just to stay up. They're so low they're still subject to atmospheric drag.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Search the web for “star link Kessler syndrome”. It’s well documented. It’s also discussed elsewhere in this thread.