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

“Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

eso.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 334 posts

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#161

Post by fc417fc802 »

unusualmonkey wrote: post #122
fc417fc802 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it cannot serve everyone in a densely populated area, I also suspect that to be the case but in order to be more objective I wonder. What's the theoretical maximum bandwidth per square meter (or other unit area) that it can deliver?

Starlink is useful, but people often confuse coverage with capacity density. The rough hierarchy is: fixed fiber/cable > Wi-Fi > cellular > LEO satellite > traditional GEO satellite. Starlink is a huge improvement over old satellite internet, but it is still fundamentally a satellite system, not dense terrestrial infrastructure. As a rough illustration, suppose one Starlink beam covers about 63 square miles and has 6…

> suppose one Starlink beam covers about 63 square miles

Is that the actual figure though?

> even a 100x improvement only gets you to about 300 kbps/person.

TBF even that would be quite useful for lots of things seeing as it's faster than the DSL service I once had. However agreed that it isn't going to replace fiber service and overbuilding to such an extent for outliers would be absurd.

Still, that's quite decent considering it's an estimate of a near worst case scenario.

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#162

Post by tekne »

solid_fuel wrote: post #106
arjie wrote: post #13

These kinds of caps have for years been a dampener on human flourishing. My observation has been that those in stagnation or decline tend to attach themselves to these desires to hold the status quo. Anti-energy, anti-housing, anti-industry and so on because they've reached a local maxima in their ability to live and have chosen to spend their life in leisure. But there is the rest of the world, and if I'm told that…

> These kinds of caps have for years been a dampener on human flourishing. I don't think blocking the view of the night sky is necessary for "human flourishing", actually. Your attitude reminds me of the Victorians, who saw their coal-smoke filled skies as a sign of virtuous progress. More reasonable minds prevailed, in the end, and now most people have a more balanced view - with the understanding that progress and…

Controversial opinion: at the time, it was.

To be able to live well now with much less of that may not have been possible without the sacrifices that came before.

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#163

Post by ben_w »

nablaxcroissant wrote: post #46

I'm not sure how exactly they are making these calculations but I just don't see it. Both Reflect and SpaceX are targeting SSO orbits where they are only reflecting for an hour or two at sunset. That isn't true of Starlink, but that constellation is already up there and if its fine right now, I don't see it getting much worse as the materials on it get refined to be less problematic. More regulations would just have…

All satellites in LEO only show up at close to sunset (and sunrise): When they're away from the terminator, they're either on the sun-side, and hence you can't see them for all the blue sky around them, or the night-side, in which case you can't see them because they're not lit by the sun because the Earth is in the way.

I'm still checking the maths on how bright a million satellites in a terminator-following SSO would be. I'm getting very big numbers. But then, the (vague and aspirational) suggestions I'm seeing right now for SpaceX are in the 120 kW range, which is huge, and lining up a million of those is enough for a contiguous ring just under 10 meters wide (how much under is "just under" depends both on how efficient the PV is and how high in LEO you go).

Regardless of if they're all in one orbit or spread over in multiple orbits at different shells that are all terminator-following SSO, from the ground you're getting a train of things with somewhat higher brightness than the ISS, with a fairly small apparent separation that (I tentatively think) becomes less than your eyes can resolve at at least one point in the sky (if there's say 50 shells, where those 50 get close to crossing).

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#164

Post by patmorgan23 »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #141
rho138 wrote: post #44

It upsets me that an establishment like ESO would grip on the “data centers in space” narrative given the absurd physics constraints.

Should so many large institutions taking it seriously not give you pause? Cause you to consider that perhaps they're economically viable for a reason you're unaware of? Or even that you could have a misunderstanding about the physics?

"All the large institutions are doing it" has never resulted in disaster (see the dot com bubble and the great financial crisis).

It seems preposterous that building a data center and

launching it into space would be more practical than building a data center terrestrially. Every problem gets 10 to 100 times harder (Cooling, energy, how are you going to do maintenance on the thing, it's in space?)

The only thing that's easier is you don't have to do any local community engagement.

If a grid connection is the constraint on your project, building an islanded data center with a buttload of solar and batteries seems a lot more feasible than launching it into space. Then you have the option to build a grid connection later and monitize those resourcess.

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#165

Post by patmorgan23 »

vova_hn2 wrote: post #103
ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe for example because thanks to them we have satellites in the first place? I agree with this and I'm not an astronomer btw.

> thanks to them we have satellites in the first place? What kind of astronomy knowledge is required to launch a satellite?

Orbital mechanics are pretty important when you're launching something that orbits the Earth.

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#166

Post by SidewaysView »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #160
SidewaysView wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think "dealing with neckbeard nerds who don't know when to sit down" was obvious. Your arrogance is astonishing and intolerable.

Mine is? You don't even know me lol. But you know, good for you. Neck beard, well maybe, I am taking the day off and I haven't shaved, though, I rarely shave anyway. But if you think I developed these views of the world because of a lack of experience in it, you'd be wrong. I've seen life and death and many many things in between. I've written poetry and cried at sunsets. I've seen good men die and bad men win. I've…

I understand you because I can read your posts.

(God, the fedora.)

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#167

Post by tekne »

toasty228 wrote: post #41
arjie wrote: post #13

These kinds of caps have for years been a dampener on human flourishing. My observation has been that those in stagnation or decline tend to attach themselves to these desires to hold the status quo. Anti-energy, anti-housing, anti-industry and so on because they've reached a local maxima in their ability to live and have chosen to spend their life in leisure. But there is the rest of the world, and if I'm told that…

> But there is the rest of the world, and if I'm told that the Africans When the average African live like the average American we'll be truly fucked, probably even before that. We should raise the bottom for sure but we definitely need to cure the degeneracy of the top too Technosolutionism is a cult. We either put the caps on ourself or nature will hard cap us anyways, in a much harsher way.

I'll wear the dunce hat if I have to, but I don't want to be an animal. I am one, now, but I don't have to be one. I refuse to be limited by what is "naturally" possible -- my nature is to be a being with a mind, and so the only limit I must respect is the raw laws of physics, whatever they are.

And physics lets me get a lot further than "8 billion Americans."

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#168

Post by piloto_ciego »

roughly wrote: post #154
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of the problems with building a utopia are technological Of course they are. Pre-Green revolution humanity probably couldn’t make a utopia. Currently, I’d argue we need way more energy to make utopia-like conditions available to all. Technology isn’t sufficient. But I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s unnecessary, unless one’s utopia permits dying horribly of infection due to minor cuts and abrasions.

> Pre-Green revolution humanity probably couldn’t make a utopia. Post-Green revolution humanity hasn’t pulled it off either.

It's a lot better than it was for the average human on earth than it was a couple centuries ago. Utopia can't happen overnight.

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#169

Post by piloto_ciego »

SidewaysView wrote: post #166
piloto_ciego wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mine is? You don't even know me lol. But you know, good for you. Neck beard, well maybe, I am taking the day off and I haven't shaved, though, I rarely shave anyway. But if you think I developed these views of the world because of a lack of experience in it, you'd be wrong. I've seen life and death and many many things in between. I've written poetry and cried at sunsets. I've seen good men die and bad men win. I've…

I understand you because I can read your posts. (God, the fedora.)

Ok, go ahead and troll away elsewhere, I am hip to your game. Have a nice day and I sincerely hope that you are happier in the future than you are now.

Re: “Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky

#170

Post by unusualmonkey »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #161
unusualmonkey wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink is useful, but people often confuse coverage with capacity density. The rough hierarchy is: fixed fiber/cable > Wi-Fi > cellular > LEO satellite > traditional GEO satellite. Starlink is a huge improvement over old satellite internet, but it is still fundamentally a satellite system, not dense terrestrial infrastructure. As a rough illustration, suppose one Starlink beam covers about 63 square miles and has 6…

> suppose one Starlink beam covers about 63 square miles Is that the actual figure though? > even a 100x improvement only gets you to about 300 kbps/person. TBF even that would be quite useful for lots of things seeing as it's faster than the DSL service I once had. However agreed that it isn't going to replace fiber service and overbuilding to such an extent for outliers would be absurd. Still, that's quite decent c…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN