Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 343 posts

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#31

Post by aerovistae »

mempko wrote: post #26
immmmmm wrote: post #14

am i the only person thinking that there should be laws to prevent rich individuals to increase the mass in LEO by a factor 10 in less than 10 years? i understand the enthusiasm but shouldn't these decisions let to the people, countries, for instance an intergouvernemental agency. also: is the dark coating working? without it those are quite visible, and make radio and optical astronomy much harder (especially large…

FCC actually gave Spacex 900 million to put those things up there. So Musk will profit at our expense. Are all his businesses government subsidized? I could still see the trail of them before dusk so it appears it isn't working. edit: the experts agree that spacex didn't do enough to reduce reflectivity and that it's still an issue. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

"at our expense"? You clearly don't have to deal with rural internet if you think this is a net loss for society.

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#32

Post by jws »

mempko wrote: post #24

On my early morning walk I can see the satellites as very bright (much brighter than the stars) line across the sky. It's clear they didn't do enough about the reflectivity issue. Edit: Already downvoted for stating a fact. Amazing. Edit: Changed 'did nothing' to 'didn't do enough' Edit: Looks like experts still believe reflectivity is still a problem: https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

When the satellites are transitioning to their service orbits they are not in the low reflectivity orientation.

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#33

Post by _Microft »

mempko wrote: post #24

On my early morning walk I can see the satellites as very bright (much brighter than the stars) line across the sky. It's clear they didn't do enough about the reflectivity issue. Edit: Already downvoted for stating a fact. Amazing. Edit: Changed 'did nothing' to 'didn't do enough' Edit: Looks like experts still believe reflectivity is still a problem: https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

They only adjust to an orientation in which reflectivity is reduced once they have reached their proper orbits. You most likely observed them while they were still boosting themselves to these orbits. The statement that you saw a "bright line" makes it sounds like they were launched recently as they spread out after a while. The boosting process takes a few weeks.

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#34

Post by mempko »

aerovistae wrote: post #31
mempko wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FCC actually gave Spacex 900 million to put those things up there. So Musk will profit at our expense. Are all his businesses government subsidized? I could still see the trail of them before dusk so it appears it isn't working. edit: the experts agree that spacex didn't do enough to reduce reflectivity and that it's still an issue. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

"at our expense"? You clearly don't have to deal with rural internet if you think this is a net loss for society.

It could have been a non-profit operation no? I would expect rural internet to be cheaper than what SpaceX is charging. $100 per month is very expensive, especially for people in rural areas which generally are poorer.

Example, I believe over 90% of rural china has high speed internet and they pay less than $10 a month.

Edit. Anyone have a good argument why we can't get $10 per month high speed internet in rural areas in the USA? If spacex can get there costs down to $10 per month, then I will be impressed. Otherwise it isn't cheaper than laying fiber.

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#36

Post by coiledsnake »

mempko wrote: post #24

On my early morning walk I can see the satellites as very bright (much brighter than the stars) line across the sky. It's clear they didn't do enough about the reflectivity issue. Edit: Already downvoted for stating a fact. Amazing. Edit: Changed 'did nothing' to 'didn't do enough' Edit: Looks like experts still believe reflectivity is still a problem: https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

> On my early morning walk I can see the satellites as very bright (much brighter than the stars) line across the sky.

No you do not. Satellites, when visible by the naked eye, are seen as point sources of light. Dots, not lines. One of two things has happened here: Either you saw meteor showers and mistook them for satellites (meteors move fast enough to be seen as lines, not points of light) or you saw long-exposure photographs of satellites online, assumed that is what it would look like through your eyeballs as well, and BSed your story about seeing them yourself.

> Edit. Already downvoted for stating a fact.

More likely you were downvoted for either being mistaken or for lying.

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#37

Post by MetaWhirledPeas »

joezydeco wrote: post #15

So where is Amazon in relation to all of this? I got pinged by a recruiter from Kuiper the other week and all I can see is that there's no way they're on track to be working in 5 years. They don't even have a stable launch platform. Would Musk sell Bezos the ride?

Bezos is in it only because he too has a rocket company. If he wanted to be in the business of feeding on the scraps of others he'd release his own terrestrial internet service.

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#38

Post by ben_w »

mempko wrote: post #24

On my early morning walk I can see the satellites as very bright (much brighter than the stars) line across the sky. It's clear they didn't do enough about the reflectivity issue. Edit: Already downvoted for stating a fact. Amazing. Edit: Changed 'did nothing' to 'didn't do enough' Edit: Looks like experts still believe reflectivity is still a problem: https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

“Did nothing” is different from “didn’t do enough”: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2515-5172/abc0e9

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#39

Post by ragebol »

swhalen wrote: post #29

These satellites have marred the night sky. There is more to life than broadband availability.

Tell that to the people not on this, or any, forum because they are left behind and don't have any or a decent internet connection.

In I were in that spot, I'd happily trade a few bright spots in the sky for catching up with the developed world.

Re: SpaceX delivers 3rd batch of Starlink satellites in two weeks

#40

Post by manicdee »

immmmmm wrote: post #14

am i the only person thinking that there should be laws to prevent rich individuals to increase the mass in LEO by a factor 10 in less than 10 years? i understand the enthusiasm but shouldn't these decisions let to the people, countries, for instance an intergouvernemental agency. also: is the dark coating working? without it those are quite visible, and make radio and optical astronomy much harder (especially large…

The dark coating isn’t used anymore, they have a visor/sunshade instead. The satellites people can see with the naked eye have not reached their service orbit yet, and they are not aligned to use the sunshade (they are instead configured to raise orbit as quickly as possible).

As for the rules about polluting space, the simple fact is that none of the rules makers expected that some agency would want to launch thousands of satellites. There are no rules covering this scenario.

AFAIK the nearest we have to rules covering the proliferation of communications satellites are ITU rules on access to spectrum. There’s no restriction on the number of satellites, just who is using what frequency in which part of the sky.

If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban.

Post reply on HN