Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

spacenews.com

211–220 of 276 posts

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#211
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Founder" is a label decided by the company, not by outsiders. Many Silicon Valley companies have "founders" who were not there on Day 1.

Founder is a word that has meaning, we shouldn't let companies dictate our use of language.

It's fun to watch people up and downvote me for just relaying what Silicon Valley founders have actually been doing for decades. I totally agree that it's a surprise to most people how it works, but I don't think "they" are going to change. It just is.

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes a difference there, sure, but SpaceX lowered orbits from 1,150 to 550km. Half the latency, but only by about as much as traffic between LA to SF incurs.

I was a bit wrong in my initial estimate. More satellites can't improve latency by much once they get dense enough, and it looks like Starlink has enough such that the altitude would be on the same scale as distance. Still doesn't matter for the typical home user. Like, I get 21 ms ping to servers in my local city.

> Still doesn't matter for the typical home user.

550km vs 1,150km might not matter, but it matters a ton vs 40,000km. Even without the bandwidth limits, I wouldn't be able to use geostationary internet for my normal usage.

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#214

As an astronomer once upon a time I follow a number of my former colleagues on Twitter and pretty regularly see them posting images that have been ruined by Starlink. Here is one from just 12 hours ago: https://twitter.com/MassiveStarGuy/status/120358895831320576... This is going to have a bigger impact on the more expensive observations that require long-duration exposures.

This definitely wasn't ruined (it's amateur video) but if anyone wants to see Starlink photobombing an astronomer, this amateur video of a recent meteor shower is an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHI8Z5qpd6I

(an astronomer friend thought I'd be able to identify the satellite amongst all the meteors, which was sweet... I think it's a bit after the 2 minute mark)

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off topic: I mentioned to someone at StarLink the idea of equipping their gear to perform global RF interferometry, will let you know if it turns into something!

That's not a new idea, and it's a lot harder than it looks. It would be awesome if Starlink would donate bandwidth for the Greenland and South Pole EHT telescopes. Right now there's no "first look" capability for them.

Asking is free. I don’t mind making a hundred asks and looking silly if one turns out to be helpful.

If I have the opportunity, I’ll mention your suggestion.

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a very large city in Europe. I think the number of stars you can see is less than 20. Ground based pollution is horrible, I don't know how you can compare those two.

Maybe because large telescopes aren't in very large cities.

100 years ago, lots of them were.

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#217
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Founder is a word that has meaning, we shouldn't let companies dictate our use of language.

It's fun to watch people up and downvote me for just relaying what Silicon Valley founders have actually been doing for decades. I totally agree that it's a surprise to most people how it works, but I don't think "they" are going to change. It just is.

I find the "did Musk found Tesla thing" petty and unnecessary. Without Musk it would have been a footnote in history.

But I dislike your assertion that just because SV companies feel free to rewrite their history, we should consider that canonical.

It's totally valid to point out that Musk wasn't a founder, though using it as some kind of slight is juvenile.

eBay is free to claim it was invented to sell Pez dispensers and we're free to point out that's PR spin. Neither side is in the wrong.

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because large telescopes aren't in very large cities.

100 years ago, lots of them were.

Kind of. Some on mountains near cities, but even then light polution was an issue they had to mitigate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_telesc...

In general, I'm fine with scientists needing to accommodate people more than they had to 100 years ago.

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fun to watch people up and downvote me for just relaying what Silicon Valley founders have actually been doing for decades. I totally agree that it's a surprise to most people how it works, but I don't think "they" are going to change. It just is.

I find the "did Musk found Tesla thing" petty and unnecessary. Without Musk it would have been a footnote in history. But I dislike your assertion that just because SV companies feel free to rewrite their history, we should consider that canonical. It's totally valid to point out that Musk wasn't a founder, though using it as some kind of slight is juvenile. eBay is free to claim it was invented to sell Pez dispenser…

I didn't assert that, nor did I say it was invalid to not understand the inside-Silicon-Valley use of "founder".

I was just explaining how to not embarrass yourself.

Re: SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

#220
post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds to me like a new technology and a way of operating has come and we're trying to make it accommodate the old way of doing things. If we really have a way to launch thousands of satellites easily, can't we replace the terrestrial functionality with that? Let's launch hundreds of satellites observing near earth asteroids. If a private company can do it, governments definitely can

So while it sounds good that we've fixed the launch industry and can launch everything cheaper, that we should only have space based telescopes, space telescopes are a very different game from ground based telescopes. First, as others have pointed out, is size. Ground based mirrors are very large, in the 10s of meters, and those mirrors are extremely heavy, like tons. You can't lift one of those mirrors up on one roc…

The large telescope mirrors aren’t single parts even in terrestrial telescopes. We have to assemble and calibrate them on their isolated mountaintops, starting with the giant support structures intended for suspending the mirrors against the pull of gravity with minimum distortion regardless of orientation of the telescope.

We then add active optics to compensate for atmospheric distortion, alter airline routes and city lighting to help improve conditions, and then pray for no clouds on the nights we want to observe.

Constructing telescopes in space will become a reality within the next decade, while terrestrial telescopes currently in planning will be finding it harder and harder to navigate the mixture of light pollution, accessibility and indigenous rights. I expect there are terrestrial telescopes already in planning and even at early stages of construction which will never be finished. Between the ever-growing forest of red tape and the ever shrinking cost of building space telescopes in orbit, there will be an inflexion point where it makes sense to dedicate the remaining budget of a terrestrial telescope project to building its spaceborne replacement.

Post reply on HN