211–220 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The moon is slowly getting farther away. Starlink satellites are expected to relatively quickly return to earth.
The moon is gaining velocity from earth’s rotation which is a finite energy source, given a long enough timescales it would collide with earth. However, the sun is going to consume the earth before that happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. I wasn’t worried before reading this thread. Now I’m a little more worried. 1. We don’t need to worry about Kessler syndrome, as the orbits of Starlink will decay in five years (from 550km). 2. ISS is at 420km. Has anyone else ever worked with something dangerous dangling over their heads? It’s kind of nerve wracking, even if you know that there’s very little chance of it falling and hitting you.
There's no real chance of starlink satellites falling and hitting you . They're designed to fall out of orbit at the end of their lifespan (or whenever something goes wrong), and fully burn up in the atmosphere before reaching the ground .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. I wasn’t worried before reading this thread. Now I’m a little more worried. 1. We don’t need to worry about Kessler syndrome, as the orbits of Starlink will decay in five years (from 550km). 2. ISS is at 420km. Has anyone else ever worked with something dangerous dangling over their heads? It’s kind of nerve wracking, even if you know that there’s very little chance of it falling and hitting you.
(Main body) Size matters a lot. That 7m estimate above is with a solar array unfurled and is much larger than the main body, which is about 3.2m x 1.6m x 0.2m[0]. These will burn up in the atmosphere, and actually are designed to do so. Are you afraid of airplanes flying overhead? Probably not. These don't burn up in the atmosphere and when they fall they do a ton more damage than satellites that don't. A big reason…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, as was said, you could just pay more for the service that includes a routable IP address.
I'm pointing out that there is a market inefficiency if I have to pay over $100 a month to be able to lease something that is worth only $40.
If you're serving something latency sensitive, you can run your server in the cloud closer to the trunk of the internet, or you can pay SpaceX $100 month to shave off the latency.
It seems like SpaceX probably doesn't want people running servers on the starlink network for no good reason. So, their pricing doesn't seem like market inefficiency to me. It just seems like them charging a fair price for their service.
Hopefully they get IPv6 working soon? Then you'll at least be able to route your own personal stuff without NAT punch-through.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>has managed to update multiple times in the intervening years. Not fully though. There is typically some amount of people who still haven't updated and at name point you just end up ending support for them. >we switched from 2G to 3G to 4G and now to 5G mobile telephony since then; HTTP has been mostly deprecated for HTTPS These solves real problems for consumers. IPv6 doesn't. CGNAT has turned out to be good enough…
> These solves real problems for consumers. IPv6 doesn't. Apart from the problem of "we literally can't have all of you online at the same time in v4, y'all have too many devices". Not that normal people should have to care about CNAT vs IPv6, but you act like the correct solution is an unacceptable horror story and the sticky plaster is panacea.
CGNAT solves that problem. The issue is more that all of your devices can't act as servers on the internet. Most people on the internet don't have a desire to run a server. So really the 4 billion cap of IPv4 is more about 4 billion different servers than 4 billion client devices.
>but you act like the correct solution is an unacceptable horror story
No, I am acting like the correct solution doesn't have any incentives to be implemented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
People like you said the same thing when we built roads, bridges, steam ships, aircraft, and now spacecraft. Instead of bothering those who are building the future, you’re welcome to run off in the woods and LARP as ted kaczynski. It’s certainly preferable to moaning on the internet about how others are “denatured”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a civilisation that decides that serving internet is more important than its ability to observe the universe It's slightly worse than that. Starlink is only viable because of huge gaps in planned provision of what is now a basic utility (even government services in many parts of the world are hard to access without the internet). We're actually giving up our inalienable and multimillenial rights to a real night sky…
They're more-or-less invisible in all but the darkest skies. I've seen a freshly-launched train of the very early ones from a quite light-polluted city sky in Glasgow, but even going deliberately looking for Starlink sats in properly dark skies I've never seen any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree with that poster as well, but this is a bit of an immature response. People are welcome to have worries about this stuff and it’s better to argue for their arguments being misguided than tell them to go live in the woods if they don’t like it.
At a certain point the only way to get through to people is to respond in a way that matches their maturity level. When people are saying ridiculous things like "You will be as insouciant, and as clueless, when your much-admired billionaire masters destroy the last remaining living ecosystem" about satellites in LEO you're not dealing with a person with adult emotions. For one, the last time I checked LEO isn't an ec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Main body) Size matters a lot. That 7m estimate above is with a solar array unfurled and is much larger than the main body, which is about 3.2m x 1.6m x 0.2m[0]. These will burn up in the atmosphere, and actually are designed to do so. Are you afraid of airplanes flying overhead? Probably not. These don't burn up in the atmosphere and when they fall they do a ton more damage than satellites that don't. A big reason…
The point isn't that I should be worried. The point is that folks in ISS should be more worried than if they were, say, at 600km...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn't that I should be worried. The point is that folks in ISS should be more worried than if they were, say, at 600km...
The satellites can't just fall out of the sky suddenly like something hanging above your head. That's not how orbital mechanics works. ISS would have warning of any threat long in advance, plenty of time to make an avoidance maneuver or return to Earth in their lifeboat.
I'm well aware of tracking and avoidance mechanisms, but, up until now, I hadn't considered the orbital planes in use.