ok, so 30k satellites from SpaceX, 60k from OneWeb. I anticipate this is just the beginning, other US companies and other countries will want to launch similar amounts. What will the impact be when there are 500k+ satellites in LEO, who decides who can launch more?
Considering the commercial pressure, regulatory agencies are likely to just reduce the collision avoidance margins. (I remember reading that this is already happening, just don't have a reference). It's easier to keep government agencies in line compared to conglomerates. But it would be fun when the Kessler syndrome starts. You could imagine that the probability increases when there are more satellites in one layer - especially LEO. I wonder how much all the recent launches affected that probability.
> I personally believe that pervasive high speed internet even in remote locations will do more for humanity than the scientific cost of these satellites. I've had faster Internet than the average Starlink speedtest says, in rural Romania, at the foot of a mountain, wild bears and all: https://twitter.com/q3k/status/1172621386977861632 . Internet access in rural areas is pretty much a solved problem, it just now hing…
It's not a solved problem in Sudan, Polynesia or on vehicles. Satellites is the solution there.
I can periodically see with the naked eye what appear to be "moving stars" (about the same approximate brightness as an average star), and appearing to orbit the earth (moving in a "straight" line across the sky). Can I assume that these are satellites?
Sattelites appear way faster then what you expect from a moving star or a plane.
Well, I don't expect starts to move (relative to each other), and angular velocity is harder to compare with a moving plane that may not be passing directly overhead and so appears slower, but yes, faster than a plane.
As I noted on a similar thread the issue is not removing the streaks, it's what data is lost behind those. If you take a look at this image you'll see that it can be a non-trivial amount of interference in some cases and that data can't just be filled in with "black". https://i.imgur.com/Qdt0N2g.png The interference also causes a "glow" effect on the CCD which corrupts the data well beyond the edges of the main strea…
I guess you could statistically impute that data. But it is the long tail of unlikely readings which are generally interesting, and imputation will not find those.
Unfortunately, the 'glow' is from the optics, not the CCD (you'd see streaks or 'boxing' that way). You can't statistically impute the optics, as these issues are based on physics. A good starter article here; http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys312/workshops/w10c/telescop...
ok, so 30k satellites from SpaceX, 60k from OneWeb. I anticipate this is just the beginning, other US companies and other countries will want to launch similar amounts. What will the impact be when there are 500k+ satellites in LEO, who decides who can launch more?
I hope not many other countries would want to do so, because many have solved internet problem already.
You shouldn't judge other countries by western standards. There are a lot of places with poor or non-existent internet. But I fear that the reason other countries will do the same is because of their current infrastructure. Capable countries would be weary of ceding the control of their internet to American companies. We already have a splintered internet with countries and companies addicted to monitoring and controlling information (which would have been impossible in the first place if it was designed following the original principles of creating a mesh, rather than a hierarchy). Why would anyone give up now?
SpaceX is lowering satellite launch cost by 90% for anyone, Chinese or otherwise. This should start a golden age of space astronomy, even if Elon doesn't give away some telescope launches as PR.
The launch costs is just a small part of the total costs. You destroy my house and I should be happy you offer me a discount when I buy new blueprints from you.
More like "you build something ugly opposite my house"
You didn't say it's small, you said it's "trivial". This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100% if it still ruins what they're working on. So yes, you're being arrogant by saying that just because it's a "trivial" amount that's ruined, when you don't understand what they're doing.
2% is trivial. They lost 2% of information (as someone pointed out this might be closer to 20%). This means the cost to the astronomer was 2% (or 20%). Calling this "ruining" is an exaggeration. Of course it would ruin a pretty picture, but "This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work." where you can choose the part of information you take into account.
Except if the thing you're trying to measure is in that 20%. Astronomy is time limited, you may never get the opportunity again.
I personally believe that pervasive high speed internet even in remote locations will do more for humanity than the scientific cost of these satellites. However, this conversation has basically been skipped over. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. The constellations are being launched, and there's zero chance of shutting them down once they're serving a commercial role. Considering the abundant red tape in the modern…
> I personally believe that pervasive high speed internet even in remote locations will do more for humanity than the scientific cost of these satellites. I've had faster Internet than the average Starlink speedtest says, in rural Romania, at the foot of a mountain, wild bears and all: https://twitter.com/q3k/status/1172621386977861632 . Internet access in rural areas is pretty much a solved problem, it just now hing…
I remember being on a tour in Romania in 2019 on a bus and in the middle of a forest in Transylvania and a colleague called that they have some issues at work and if I could please look into it. Then I just tethered my LTE reception (sometimes it dropped to 3G but was still usable) to my laptop, SSHed in and fixed the issues for them.
In Germany, even being on a quite populated beach some 500 meters away from the promenade of a popular vacation city (Heringsdorf) is a hit or miss in regards to a usable mobile reception not even talking about LTE (this is on O2 Deutschland, in August 2020). There are many parts of Germany, that are more or less white spots in regards to a usable mobile data connection. I mean, sometimes my phone would just use the polish signal from Świnoujście even though Heringsdorf is about 10 km from the border.
> I was picturing some of the places I've been in Africa that don't have mobile reception and may well never get it if it means laying fiber. When was the last time that you were in Africa? And in which country, because it's an entire continent. EDIT: So I guess HN doesn't like being called out on https://africasacountry.com/ issues? Well sorry not sorry, but as someone born in Ghana I'm more a little tired of the se…
This isn't about being able to afford infrastructure. It's about population density in rural areas. North America and Australia (where I'm from) have the exact same issue. No country is going to spend a million bucks to lay fiber to ten person towns in the middle of nowhere.
The U.S. actually does do this! The FCC alone spends more than $2bn annually subsidizing telecom infrastructure in rural areas. There are a number of other similar programs, and Ajit Pai (current FCC chairman) recently proposed another $20bn of spending on subsidies for rural internet connections: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-204-billion-rural-...