• MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I’m confused because band pass filters exist. Can they not add a filter to eliminate the frequencies that starlink uses?

    Also, the starlink satellites use phased array antennas, guess that wasn’t a great idea either.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 minutes ago

      That works great unless you’re specifically looking for results in those frequencies.

      It’s the equivalent of trying to look for a red laser pointer dot on a wall and some jackass put red floodlights in front of you aimed at the wall.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      30 minutes ago

      The quote says “it will stop us doing science in that spectrum.”

      They can filter out starlink’s frequencies. What else does that filter out? If the radio telescope uses that spectrum, they can’t filter it out and continue to do their work. As I understand, this would be all radio telescopes looking within our solar system.

      Space pollution frustrates me because there’s truly nothing I can do about it. Maybe someone will democratize a laser or something to shoot down these bullshit non-science satellites, like some Johnny Pneumonic shit, or was it Escape from L.A., no, it was Congo.

    • dyc3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Yes, that completely destroys the information in that band. That is the point, the satellites are using these bands, overpowering what was already naturally there.

  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    I’m sure Musk is perfectly willing to turn certain constellations off at specific times… For a price, of course.

  • Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Sending so many satellites also requires so many rocket launchers that Google passed on it because it was too polluting.

    Starlink is the poster child of “fuck you, I got mine.”

  • glitchdx@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    starlink wouldn’t have a leg to stand on (in the US, can’t speak for elsewhere) if isps were held to installing/maintaining/upgrading infrastructure that was already paid for by the federal government decades ago and then the isps just didn’t do the work.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      That’s a nice thought, but

      • Starlink has no old infrastructure
      • Rural and remote customers are difficult to wire up

      Even in the best case where US was close to 100% wired up like we paid for, Starlink would have a market in remote areas world wide, RVs, aircraft, ships

      • AnyOldName3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        4 hours ago

        The US government asked the big ISPs how much it would take to wire everyone up to high-speed Internet, then passed a bill to give them a ludicrous lump sum to do so (IIRC it was hundreds of billions). The money was split between dividends, buying up other companies, and suing the federal government for attempting to ask for the thing they’d paid for, and in the end, the government gave up. That left loads of people with no high-speed Internet, and the ISPs able to afford to buy out anyone who attempted to provide a better or cheaper service. Years down the line, once someone with silly amounts of money for a pet project and a fleet of rockets appeared, there was an opportunity for them to provide a product to underserved customers who could subsidise the genuinely impossible-to-run-a-cable-to customers.

        If the US had nearly-ubiquitous high-speed terrestrial Internet, there wouldn’t have been enough demand for high-speed satellite Internet to justify making Starlink. I think this is what the other commenter was alluding to.

      • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        5 hours ago

        This, I’m both very rural and in an RV at the same time. Starlink is literally my only means of playing games. The only other even remotely viable option is LTE internet from something like T-Mobile but out here the towers don’t really have much capacity so I might be able to play the game fine and I might just start disconnecting Midway through a match randomly as the internet struggles to even load a basic web page

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Welp, I guess we all have to suffer with no internet in rural areas because of some astronomy nerds. I’ll take global, high-speed, expensive, but still affordable internet over some shots of distant nebulas any day. Not a Musk fan, but this sounds like a desperate attempt to find something to dunk on him for. There’s tons of reasons already, but this ain’t one.

            • AEsheron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              38 minutes ago

              The point of this thread is that Starlink only exists to solve this problem because the ISPs were paid to do it the old fashioned way and decided to fuck off with the cash instead. It wouldn’t have solved the RV issue, but if nost rural areas had the cable internet the government bought, then Starlink likely never gets off the ground, pun intended.

          • LordKitsuna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            I’m just saying blindly calling for it to go away entirely (which i see a lot of on stuff like this) isn’t helpful. Clearly they need to tone down emissions but it’s a useful service.

            I work 10hr shifts at work and it’s 1hr 30 both to and from work, moving isn’t really an option for me atm. I don’t think it’s unreasonable I’d like to be able to stream my shows or play games with my friends to relax

          • dubious@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            lordkitsuna is the answer, dude. more people getting away from the grind of the big machine to live remote lives far from society is the answer. i don’t like starlink either but these networks are crucial for the modern nomad to exist.

            • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              46 seconds ago

              The answer to what? If everyone does this, there won’t be a single remote place on earth that isn’t crawling with sprinter vans. It can’t scale, and it doesn’t need to be specifically catered to. You want the wilderness, you get the wilderness. You want low latency Internet, then get to a fiber connection. We don’t need every first world amenity everywhere.

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Isn’t Starlink also too expensive because you have to replace the satellites every 5 years? As in you’d have to sell to basically everybody on earth to be profitable. And they charge 50Euros a month, almost twice as much as I currently pay, and I’m satisfied with my current provider.

    • asterfield@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 hours ago

      50Euros a month, almost twice as much as I current pay

      Wow Canada sucks in in our ISP choices

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Cries in long island

        I have one option that isn’t 4g wireless crap… It’s $110/month for 500mbps… It was $80/month but they felt the need to make more money by eliminating their lower tiers and “forcing” you to upgrade… I just suddenly had a 500mbps plan and $110 bill without asking them to change anything…

    • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Their target market is people who don’t have a better option, not people who already have fibre to the door.

        • dubious@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          not exactly. many starlink users are not your grandpa in his $500k RV. it’s the digital nomad in their $5k RV held together by duct tape. some of us would do anything to get away from all the bullshit of modern society, and quite frankly i think the world needs more of us.

          • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I was being sarcastic. I simply don’t believe that there’s enough money to be made selling satellite internet to support replacing a large constellation of satellites every 5 years. Especially since Starlink’s competitors use higher up satellites, meaning they don’t have to replace their satellites as often.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        In fact, increasing Earth’s albedo by pumping certain types of chemicals into the higher layers of the atmosphere has been proposed as a possible geoengineering solution that could slow down global warming.

        I wouldn’t be surprised if the entire project was architected as a way to completely sidestep regulatory approval and test geoengineering theories before climate change really starts to pop. Elon and his fellow plutocrats are undoubtedly sociopathic enough to do that.

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    223
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Fuckin space garbage is what it is.

    Yes it was impressive that they landed a rocket again once, but the quantity of launches and satellites is doing nothing good for anyone. It should’ve been a stepping stone for better technology, but instead they’re just mining money. Privately owned space engineering is a disgrace to humanity.

    Space engineering used to unite even the worst opponents as with the international space station, but now those institutions are underfunded, while billionaire space-musk can shoot his loads into the atmosphere without any regard to the rest of the worlds population living inside said sphere.

    Tax the asshole already.

    • dubious@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      agreed. it’s a technology we need but like everything meant to improve humanity, it should be publicly owned (no, not the stock market - truly public).

    • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I was excited about starlink when it was announced, but already it’s way too expensive, already bows to actual totalitarians and isn’t affordable on the ocean and not available in remote places without a license.

      And with more satellite constellations planned by amazon and others, it seems the kessler syndrome is just a question of time.

      • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        On the Kessler point, Starlink birds fly at an altitude where they will deorbit in 4-8 years if they go dead, so that particular orbit will always be fairly clean, and if a Kessler event does happen, the debris will deorbit in a reasonable length of time.

        • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Turkey and Russia. It’s clear that profit seeking corporations would bow, but then Elon screams bloody murder when reactionary forces in Brazil manipulating social media get censored.

            • LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              To bow, or bow down or kneel for. But I’m not going to google that for you haha. The basic problem is that starlink theoretically has immense power so it becomes a political tool. He bows to those ones but not to legitimate democratic interests.

              Especially once starlink and others can make landline based internet connections obsolete by pricing them out - which they are not currently doing though, but it seems only a matter of time with competition. Basically we could get to a situation where there are only like 2 or 3 internet provider practically controlling internet globally.

              • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                14 hours ago

                They won’t be able to price landline based connections out as long as they have to replace their satellites every 5 years. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re running at a loss currently.

    • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      When people talk about taxing these horrible people I think of tax as being a euphamism

    • ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      16 hours ago

      the quantity of launches and satellites is doing nothing good for anyone

      Except for the millions of people accessing internet via Starlink to whom the alternative is either no internet, slow internet or extremely expensive internet.

  • linkshulkdoingit69@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    To me Elon Musk is like the real-life, slightly less dramatic and slightly less evil Handsome Jack out of Borderlands

  • mvirts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    If it can interfere with large aperture ground telescopes… it would be a shame if those ground telescopes grew transmitters and started interfering back.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    20 hours ago

    All worth it so lord Musk can push his shitty memes to remote tribes in the Amazon.

  • B312@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    17 hours ago

    What’s up with some meme communities and people not posting memes on them?

  • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Don’t worry, greed ensures that Kessler Syndrome will get them in the not too distant future. Sure hope you aren’t reliant on GPS or other satellite services, but at least, for a shining moment, shareholders got some value. /s

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Starlink is a very low orbit. Even if something like that happened, it would clean itself up in like five years

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Sorry, you’re probably right. It’s a thing I expect to be problematic if the future. Of course all problems will burn up in the atmosphere…

      • MalReynolds@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Not wrong, and yet small parts of that ‘orbit’ would kinetically increase, in a Kessler sort of way…

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        When 2 satellites collide, the pieces don’t all stay on the same altitude. Even though none of them will be in a stable orbit, all it takes is for one piece to smack into a satellite that’s a bit higher up before it de-orbits, and boom, now you’ve got a debris field that won’t de-orbit.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          Pieces don’t gain kinetic energy in a collision. Even if they collide and get sent off in an “upwards” direction, it’s not up very far relative to the orbit, and that’s just a less circular orbit at lower speed that will burn up even faster

          For you scenario to work, there would have to be a chain reaction

          • collision, sending a few pieces upwards
          • during that small number of orbits they survive, collision, sending a few pieces upward
          • repeat many times

          Each chance is remote enough, and ricocheting pieces only go so far, and any higher satellites they could reach are also low orbit, that I can’t imagine how remote the chances of this happening are

          Kessler syndrome is a real worry, but not in this low orbit

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        The satellites are constantly giving themselves small boosts to maintain orbit and then are deorbited in 5 years when they run out of fuel. It should be well less than 5 years to resolve a LEO Kessler type situation from starlink.

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      GPS/GLONASS/Galileo are at ~20,000km vs starlinks ~500km, all the LEO satellites would be fucked but global positioning would be fine. Sounds good to me.

      • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Wouldn’t interference from all the junk in between be at least somewhat of a problem, particularly given that the average GPS receiver already isn’t super sensitive nor accurate?

        • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Unlikely. There would be very little, if any, interference with signals unless they were extremely precise. The issue is physical stuff getting destroyed by debris.

          Think of a very light sprinkling of rain, but imagine if every raindrop was solid and moving faster than a bullet. Walking out in it would be deadly, but likely wouldn’t affect your cell phone service. Well, besides the tower itself and every structure in the area getting absolutely shredded.