Scientists, looking deep into space, have long voiced their concerns that satellites are encroaching on their ability to study the cosmos.

  • Trevader24135@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well the issue is that not everything is black and white.

    On one hand, these satellites can potentially absolutely wreak havok on astronomy, and our own view of the night sky. Nobody wants that.

    On the other hand, in a few years, these satellites are able to provide cheap internet all over the planet, which would allow poor remote communities in South America, Africa, and Asia access to the internet, which is practically impossible through any other means. IMO, its worth the tradeoff. I think helping people is more important than astronomy, but I recognize that that’s just my opinion

    • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay but you’re falling into Elon’s trap. You can’t weigh future potential against current harm naively. Particularly when it comes from somebody with a long history of over promising and under delivering. Since we pay the full price up front (loss of science, etc) but will never reap the full benefits promised.

      • ThoughtGoblin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        For instance: it could help remote villages or third world countries. But Starlink costs a pretty penny in western money those places lack. Otherwise they would already have traditional infrastructure.

        • piecat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do those remote villages even have the power to plug in a PC and starlink equipment?

          In college I helped make solar phone chargers for some villages in wartorn areas. They would walk days to charge their phones and battery banks, then walk back. Somehow they had cellular service, but the power lines to their village were ripped down during a conflict.

          There’s probably an exceedingly small population that is in a third world place with power, with devices that need internet, but are also without internet.

      • Z4rK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not a distant future, the benefits are already here and increasing with each launch.

        I’ve been tracking a sailboat crossing the Atlantic Ocean the past weeks which have been able to upload videos to YouTube everyday, something that would be impossible without Starlink.

        Of course, this specific use case isn’t important, just used it to point out that Starlink is already working well.

        • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          To my knowledge absolutely nothing critical to Ukranian defense uses Starlink.

          And again, what is niave is to not heavily discount any claims Elon makes. Starlink provides neglible value currently, what potential might exist is imaginary.

          The best thing for the world is to realize Elon was a sunk cost and move on

            • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              For the third time, you cannot separate the grifter from the grift. That’s not “Fuck Elon”, that’s “starlink is not, and never will be, what was promised”

              Similarly, you can’t weigh an abstract possibility versus a real cost. You want the conversation to be some philosophical discourse about social vs societal value. But it’s not that, it’s a real situation right now.

              And in this real life situation, we have to evaluate what starlink actually is - - a failed toy for wealthy early adopters - - and not what some abstract “could be”.

              Especially when we know for a fact that any public promises of that potential are certainly intended to mislead and not inform.

                • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It’s definitely not an honest conversation when you’ve deliberately and repeatedly chosen to misunderstand what’s being said.

                  It’s time to grow up and stop believing hucksters and grifters.

            • dragontamer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I tried to separate the conversation from Elon to keep it more honest about the benefits of accessible internet for everyone anywhere on Earth.

              So why do you think that launching thousands of satellites would be more cost-effective than other options?

              1. Satellites are expensive.

              2. Launching them into space is expensive.

              3. Cell phones, and cell phone towers are cheap.

              4. Elon Musk is launching them into an orbit where they’ll decay in 10 years anyway, meaning you’ll have to perpetually launch these thousands, or even 10s of thousands of satellites into space just to keep service.

              5. Traditional satellite companies launch fewer numbers of many satellites into the sky to cover large swaths of land instead. Since they aim at rural areas (ex: the Ocean with no one there), they are superior in a cost/efficacy perspective. Yes, there’s less bandwidth, but there’s less people, so its a fine tradeoff.

              6. If you need more density, building cell phone networks / cell phone towers is just superior.

              7. If you need even more density than what cell phones can give you, then there’s always fiber optic directly.

                • dragontamer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Well, a quick google makes me think a single cell tower and a single satellite are close to the same price.

                  All the satellites in question burn up within 10ish years due to their placement in orbit. In fact, a large number of SpaceX satellites already exploded due to mistakes during their deployment.

                  Cell towers don’t burn up like that just sitting around.

                  I think it would take a lot more work and money to set up towers in the poor countries/areas infrastructure doesn’t exist/hard terrain/desolate areas/warzones/middle of the ocean/etc. But you’d have to weigh in the sacrificing space, which is invaluable to me personally.

                  Cool. We already have Hughesnet and have had it for decades.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Lmao go run some fiop in the Amazon and let me know how that shakes out

          • SoPunny@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Elon already fucked with their starlink I believe, but I didn’t recheck to be fair. Also seriously, don’t trust that man with shit.

    • tempest
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t Starlink still heavily limited by the geography you are in. As in there cannot be too many subscribers in any one place because it will use all the capacity? If that’s still the case seems doubtful it will ever bring anything cheap to the masses.

    • eleitl@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      At least SpaceX restarted the cheap launch race and is giving us the option of heavy but affordable payloads for scientific instruments.

      LEO junk will only get worse with time, so let’s start planning for it.

    • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      which would allow poor remote communities in South America, Africa, and Asia access to the internet, which is practically impossible through any other means.

      “Practically impossible” is a horrible way to describe it. It’s not practically impossible; the solution and methods are eminently doable, they just aren’t done (yet) because of cost in poor areas with relatively weak governments. Most of those areas will get reliable non-satellite internet in the years to come.

      We can talk up the good of systems like Starlink without hyping it up as delivering something that is otherwise impossible.

    • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but you’re creating a false dichotomy to get to your conclusion. The way Starlink is creating its satellite network is not the only way to create one. Viasat doesn’t blanket the globe in satellites.