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

An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

thisiscolossal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#111

Post by fc417fc802 »

ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #55
fc417fc802 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that there are strong economic reasons in favor but lets not overstate things. If it was economically viable to build out copper telephone lines to those areas then there is zero reason fiber should pose an issue. As far as raw materials go fiber is much cheaper than copper.

>If it was economically viable to build out copper telephone It wasn't, it was subsidized by the government.

Sloppy wording on my part. Comment I responded to included "or even governments" which is clearly false.

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#112

Post by yellowapple »

> Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked.

We have the technology to put observatories in orbit, where satellite "pollution", light pollution, atmospheric effects, etc. all become significantly less problematic. Maybe that should be our focus, rather than on shaming satellite constellations for doing essential work?

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#113

Post by tzs »

goku12 wrote: post #56
WalterBright wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put the black surface an inch away from the satellite, supported by standoffs. That'll keep the heat away from the satellite. Also, the black surface only needs to be on the Earth facing side.

It isn't that simple, is it? Even if you place the black surface on a spacer (adding mass, might I add), the black surface itself is going to radiate heat back onto the satellite via blackbody radiation. This is always going to create a worse thermal situation unless you can somehow radiate away as much heat as you could with reflections. To see what I mean, check out JWST's thermal shield.

How about something like this?

  |              __
  |        |_/\_|  |
  |        | \/ |__|
  E        1  2   3
E is the Earth. 1 is a thin lightweight black disc to block the view of the rest of the satellite. 3 is the working parts of the satellite. 2 are mirrors to direct any emissions from 1 in the direction of 3 out to the sides and to direct any emissions from 3 in the direction of 1 out to sides.

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#114

Post by asdefghyk »

ag56 wrote: post #107

At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful. In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me a…

The article mentions the problem ....

"....Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked....."

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#115

Post by spookie »

ag56 wrote: post #107

At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful. In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me a…

imagine if one of those blows up.

Now imagine the probability of the debris hitting other satellites and causing even more debris.

Finally, compare how many satellites have been launched in the past 5 years versus the rest of history.

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#116

Post by CognitiveLens »

asdefghyk wrote: post #114
ag56 wrote: post #107

At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful. In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me a…

The article mentions the problem .... "....Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked....."

I realize it's a nit-pick, but that is not at all the common definition of light pollution as it relates to night skies.

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#117

Post by defrost »

CognitiveLens wrote: post #116
asdefghyk wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentions the problem .... "....Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked....."

I realize it's a nit-pick, but that is not at all the common definition of light pollution as it relates to night skies.

It falls under clause three:

  What is light pollution
Light Pollution is the excess or inappropriate artificial light outdoors. Light pollution occurs in three ways: glare, light trespass, and skyglow.

  \* Glare is the bright and uncomfortable light shining directly to the observer that interferes with your vision.

  \* Light trespass is the unintended spill of artificial light into other people’s property or space and often becomes a source of conflict.

  \* Skyglow is the brightening of the night sky from human-caused light scattered in the atmosphere.
~ https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nightskies/lightpollution.htm

Reflected sunlight from a human object spilling light into an environment that would otherwise not have that reflected sunlight is very much in the spirit of light pollution.

It's certainly seen as such by astronomers.

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#118

Post by starkrights »

ag56 wrote: post #107

At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful. In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me a…

You acknowledge the existence of things blocking , and can't imagine that there are people who want to see ?

I feel like when is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragmatically?

The following types of people might feel strongly about this for some reason or another- I feel like steelmaning hypothetical opinions they might have is a really enriching thing to do.

- Photographers / enthusiasts

- Astronomers / enthusiasts

- Those who enjoy nature

I personally have a mixed opinion, probably leaning towards alignment with the above groups, but I can also steelman the thought processes of those who'd think this is cool or fascinating (because of course, it is!)

I'm not trying to convince you of something about the post subject here; The rhetorical questions above are not intended to be read as "how don't you understand this and agree with me", but instead "how/why did these potential viewpoints not find you?" The lack of mention of any other viewpoint comes off as almost poor-faith or naivete.

In the SWE community, people place a lot of emphasis on attempting to find solutions to a problem yourself first, before asking a question (and detailing what you've tried/explored already) to a community. With that mentality, it irks me when I see comments that don't seem to apply the same rigor to rhetorical discussions.

At the risk of being overtly snarky, could you really not conjure anyone that might have an opposing viewpoint?

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#119

Post by starkrights »

starkrights wrote: post #118
ag56 wrote: post #107

At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful. In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me a…

You acknowledge the existence of things blocking , and can't imagine that there are people who want to see ? I feel like when is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragm…

And fwiw, I also think the image is really cool. It's insane the world we've built, and imagining the context of all the math, physics, and human power of will that are behind those streaks of light is awesome.

But a negative viewpoint can't be that hard to see, right?

Re: An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

#120

Post by sandspar »

mmooss wrote: post #103
sandspar wrote: post #66

You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. The benefits of satellites seem worth the cost, at least in the foreseeable future.

That phrase is not seen as the opposite of wisdom. It is just an excuse to disregard costs and other responsibilities for your own benefit.

Your statement doesn't make sense.
Post reply on HN