285
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
285 points (93.1% liked)
Technology
55692 readers
2938 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's just not a sustainable idea. To expand service, they need to launch even more satellites. Which degrade and fall down after a year. The only reason it could exist thus far is because the US taxpayer paid for it with subsidies like this.
America has problems with getting cable companies to actually lay cable after giving them money to do that, which is a separate thing. But at least if you get cable laid, it is in the ground providing service for hundreds of years instead of 1 year.
They could do it and make money too, but they are only thinking of short term gains. In my neck of the woods spectrum kept taking the money and barely putting up any cable until our state finally told them to pound sand. Fios then said we'll do it, and they did. They have run thousands of miles of fibre in the last few years, and guess who everyone is paying for internet service because it's the only service available up here.
This is exactly it and everyone should keep it in mind even if it's helped you individually in your rural area. Elon keeps taking shortcuts for a cash grab and shooting garbage into space is not a long term answer.
The SATs burn up after a few years. No trash in space, and if you think sats in space in large numbers is clogging up space. I've got a bridge to sell you. Do you crash into every house you drive past?
Releasing all kinds of cool chemicals into the upper atmosphere, and no one really knows what kind of effect that will have. Cool.
The number of satellites Starlink plans to launch will quintuple the number of spacecraft in LEO.
It absolutely is clogging up LEO, and multiple space agencies share that opinion. NASA wrote a whole letter on the potential hazards Starlink presents, and the challenges it adds to critical missions.
The speeds these satellites are moving at make this comparison so bad it's embarrassing. Starlink satellites have accounted for over half of all close calls since they've been in orbit, and when the constellation is done, it's estimated that that number will grow to 90% of all close encounters.
Lol what the fuck are you talking about, do you know how much shit burns up in our atmosphere yearly? It's a nothing burger.
Ooo nooo, you do realize how large space is right? It's also, not on a flat plane like the earth is ..
Yes and spacex addressed those concerns. It's not clogging up anything. Space is massive...and unlike the earth it's on a 3d plain.
Go look up what a close encounter is...earth has close encounters with big rocks all the damn time, and it misses shit by hundreds of thousands of miles... again space is huge.
About 60 tons or so of rock a day, which mostly deposit oxygen, magnesium, and silicon into the atmosphere, with known effects. Once Starlink is fully up, an additional 2 tons of aluminum satellite per day will be burning up in the upper atmosphere, giving off alumina dust and potentially wreaking havoc on the ozone layer and blocking sunlight. It's impossible to know the full effects of that drastic of a change.
The satellites are in low Earth orbit (LEO) though, a very specific, very small, and very crowded region of space.
You know what you're right, they did say they'll steer Starlink away from the ISS during docking, how nice of them. Still doesn't address the rest of their concerns in that letter, nor the concerns of the rest of the scientific community.
This is a weird thing to repeat twice. It almost sounds like you think the earth is flat.
Any encounter between two craft that get closer than 1km.
Again, the "big rocks" that burn up in the Earth's atmosphere have known effects. Also I don't think you know what a close encounter is - the whole world would know if a "big rock" came within 1km of the Earth's surface.
Ah, yeah, you have no idea what a close encounter is.
Again, we're talking about low Earth orbit, a very specific, very small, very crowded region of space. Where the spacecraft there are traveling at speeds up to 30,000 kph. Dismissing all that and just saying "but but space is huge" is ignorant.
Wow you have alot of patience trying to actually refute/educate this dumbass. Good explanations
Bless you for having the amount of patience to respond to this elon-bot
Anything that needs to dock with the ISS will fly through Starlink's orbit to get there. Also docking adjustment maneuvers are usually performed right at Starlink's orbital altitude. It does conflict, or else NASA wouldn't have included it in their letter.
Also not only would they need more satellites, but satellites more densely in any area with multitude of customers. Which eventually hits RF interference saturation.
Radio signal has only so much bandwidth in certain amount of frequency band. Infact being high up and far away makes it worse. Since more receivers hit the beam of the satellite transmission. One would have to acquire more radio bands, but we'll unused global satellite transmission bands don't grow in trees.
Tighter transmitters and better filtering receivers can help, but usually at great expense and in the end eventually one hits a limit of "can't cheat laws of physics"
After 5 years.
SpaceX sells services. Just because they're selling services to the government doesn't make it a subsidy.
Starlink is a service sold to you, not the American government. You seem confused. You don't get it for free paid for by taxes.
You have to buy it, and the American government subsidies it to encourage private sector spending on low to no profit endeavours like Internet to remote regions
SpaceX has paid for starlink through selling flights on their rockets, not through "subsidies like this"
You seem confused if you're flip flopping between starlink being paid for by consumers and subsidies.
No, they didn't. They got almost a billion a year in subsidies, which is what this whole thread is about.
Starlink is paid for by consumers and heavily subsidized by governments. It's not that hard to follow.