381–390 of 508 posts
Are they saying the satellites start out lower and then go higher later?
I thought the purpose of the low orbits was to lower latency. To make the internet usable. Other satellite internet has much longer latency because of the distance the signals need to travel. Are they saying the satellites start out lower and then go higher later?
They state "the low deployment altitude requires more capable satellites at a considerable cost to us" - the extra cost is in the extra fuel required to raise the satellite's orbit - this results in less fuel available for maintaining the satellite's orbit and thus a shorter lifetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except for a shower of heavy metal particles. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89909-7.pdf
"mostly aluminum" Aluminum is not a "heavy metal". Not only is it of low density, it's not toxic in the way actual heavy metals like lead are. Your inclusion of the adjective "heavy" was misleading as that wasn't in the source you referenced.
I just want to add that the term "heavy metal" associated with toxicity is not really a good choice, even if it has been used for a long time.
The so called toxic "heavy metals" are not toxic because they are heavy. They are toxic because their ions have a large size (when compared with metals like magnesium or iron).
The large size of their ions makes them interfere with the functions of the ions having a similar large size and which have important uses in all living beings, i.e. calcium or potassium or ammonium or sodium. Large ionic size is also associated with good solubility, which enhances the chances of those ions to be absorbed after ingestion and enter living cells.
"Metals with large ions" is longer and more inconvenient to say than "heavy metals", but it would be much more accurate. Saying "heavy" does not make you understand why e.g. cadmium (same ionic size as calcium) is very toxic, while indium and tin, which are heavier (but which have smaller ions), have low toxicity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I imagined some solar flare or something. From my understanding, they are the biggest existential risk to modern humanity, slightly ahead of rogue AI. From that context, whether misguided or otherwise, you can imagine that my heart skipped a beat when I read the link title.
Out of curiosity, where would you rank the climate crisis on this list? It has already irrevocably caused the extinction of lots of species, and while certainly humans will continue to live, "modern humanity" will be replaced by something else.
1. Solar flares
2. Rogue AI
3. World war
3. Water scarcity (tied to war above)
5. Pandemic
6. Climate disasters
My naive perception heavily weighs future possible technological progress. Solar flare collapse is basically unmitigable due to a combination of unpredictability and deep systemic interdependence and dependence on susceptible technologies. Some governments paid lip service to this risk in the past, allegedly pushing to plan for this risk. Ultimately, only some organizations will have the resources to sustain the acute impact of a solar flare, but what good is Google if they're the only ones with working computers?
With climate, I'm very optimistic about the innovation that will result from economic and social pressures. I think 10 years ago I would have rated it at #2.
Edit: What are the chances. As I wrote this, JET started live-streaming an announcement about fusion energy...
I thought the purpose of the low orbits was to lower latency. To make the internet usable. Other satellite internet has much longer latency because of the distance the signals need to travel. Are they saying the satellites start out lower and then go higher later?
So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch? There was a G1 warning posted until 21:00 UTC on the launch date: Space Weather Message Code: WARK05 Serial Number: 1635 Issue Time: 2022 Feb 03 1428 UTC EXTENDED WARNING: Geomagnetic K-index of 5 expected Extension to Serial Number: 1634 Valid From: 2022 Feb 03 0…
Spacex will probably IPO soon and needs Starlink to look like it could actually make money at some indefinite time in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So…we have the Space Weather Prediction Center [0] and raw data from NOAA for this exact purpose. Does SpaceX not review the data / warnings before launch?" is not just asking questions; it's full-on passive-aggressive. Being pseudo-anonymous and safely behind a screen depersonalizes the experience enough that we get tempted to take swipes for some reason (I do too), and it diminishes the experience on places like H…
spacex isn't a person.
> Who Is A United States Person?
>United States Person. United States person means United States citizens (including minor children); United States residents; entities, including but not limited to, corporations, partnerships, or limited liability companies created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States; and trusts or estates formed under the laws of the United States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced that starlink is cheaper or better for than ground based cellular infrastructure - its closest technical analog. It does however possess two chief advantages - the appearance of being novel and speed of construction. To build a cellular network to cover the areas that starlink does would take a decade - where it can be done at all. The aforementioned novel appearance also gets it largely free spectr…
> To be clear - it's not novel Except no-one has run constellation of thousand satellites. Except no-one is trying establish sat-to-sat communication links (I may be wrong here, someone should provide proof) Except no-one can provide you with low latency, high speed satellite internet. If you have alternatives (I do where I live) - Starlink is probably not for me. You seem to paint as if starlink is something trivial…