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

151–160 of 334 posts

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

#151

Post by a34729t »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #145
tadfisher wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Star Trek canon, humanity figured out how to live in utopia by destroying all existing power structures in a Third World War. What is happening now is we have all our existing structure, and the existing requirement to earn money to live within this structure, and the human creative output we want in our eventual utopia is used to train automata with the express goal to replace humans in those creative endeavors,…

> In Star Trek canon, humanity figured out how to live in utopia by destroying all existing power structures in a Third World War. Perhaps we could try to destroy those power structures without having a giant war lol, just saying. > What is happening now is we have all our existing structure, and the existing requirement to earn money to live within this structure, and the human creative output we want in our eventua…

> Right, I get the frustration, but how many "creators" were doing truly creative and expressive work writing ad copy or making up logos for shoe companies or whatever.

Exactly. The "creative" wankery is just people who got college degrees but don't want to work in offices and/or do things with numbers.

Sorry, jobs that are fun and desireable aren't in big supply. Do something difficult, boring, disgusting, unsexy and perhaps dangerous and you are set.

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

#152

Post by browningstreet »

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…

The "let builders and capitalists do anything because the future will be better for it" isn't a technically considered position. It's a tautology.

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

#153

Post by chickensong »

ggreer wrote: post #92
upofadown wrote: post #55

>SpaceX plans to send one million more satellites into orbit, for space-based data centres, ... I think we should wait to see how the first satellite data centre works out. It seems fairly unlikely that it could be practical. It seems kind of nuts... >Reflect Orbital, a US start-up, aims to launch a constellation of very large mirror-like satellites to provide sunlight at night, with reflected beams that span at leas…

I can think of several practical uses. It would be very useful immediately after a disaster. Lighting up the night would make search & rescue much more effective. It would also allow for more solar power generation in an area, reducing pollution. Extra light at high latitudes in the winter would reduce seasonal depression. Are they worth the cost/tradeoffs? I don’t know. But there is practical value to lighting up th…

> Are they worth the cost/tradeoffs?

No. Lighting up the night is an abomination. Reflect Orbital can go fuck themselves.

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

#154

Post by roughly »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144
roughly wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the problems with building a utopia are technological, all of the problems are social and political. What the people arguing with you are telling you is that if you ignore the social and political problems, you're going to continue to create exactly the same kinds of problems that have been caused by every other attempt to solve social and political problems with technology. When you can figure out why people…

> 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.

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

#155

Post by fc417fc802 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101
tadfisher wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, do Memphis residents get to control xAI's production? I think we're already in this situation.

> we're already in this situation xAI’s datacenters aren’t currently measurably replacing labour. So no, we’re not. If AI becomes economically competitive with broad sections of human labor, those who control it do have the power to replace humans. But banning domestic datacenters doesn’t stop them from existing; it just stops them from existing here. If that precondition arises, that’s just a recipe for domestic dei…

I think the point being made regarding xAI was that even if the datacenter is local that doesn't necessarily result in any meaningful difference. In other words, having more AI datacenters under your jurisdiction might or might not provide a meaningful ability to regulate in a way that shapes the impact of AI on the economy. (I do agree with you that it's almost certainly a good idea to have them though.)

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

#156

Post by verzali »

ggreer wrote: post #92
upofadown wrote: post #55

>SpaceX plans to send one million more satellites into orbit, for space-based data centres, ... I think we should wait to see how the first satellite data centre works out. It seems fairly unlikely that it could be practical. It seems kind of nuts... >Reflect Orbital, a US start-up, aims to launch a constellation of very large mirror-like satellites to provide sunlight at night, with reflected beams that span at leas…

I can think of several practical uses. It would be very useful immediately after a disaster. Lighting up the night would make search & rescue much more effective. It would also allow for more solar power generation in an area, reducing pollution. Extra light at high latitudes in the winter would reduce seasonal depression. Are they worth the cost/tradeoffs? I don’t know. But there is practical value to lighting up th…

It doesn't work out anyway. If you work out how much light these satellites can reflect it is practically nothing and certainly not economically viable. The company seems to be little more than a way to extract money from fools.

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

#157

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #155
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're already in this situation xAI’s datacenters aren’t currently measurably replacing labour. So no, we’re not. If AI becomes economically competitive with broad sections of human labor, those who control it do have the power to replace humans. But banning domestic datacenters doesn’t stop them from existing; it just stops them from existing here. If that precondition arises, that’s just a recipe for domestic dei…

I think the point being made regarding xAI was that even if the datacenter is local that doesn't necessarily result in any meaningful difference. In other words, having more AI datacenters under your jurisdiction might or might not provide a meaningful ability to regulate in a way that shapes the impact of AI on the economy. (I do agree with you that it's almost certainly a good idea to have them though.)

> the point being made regarding xAI was that even if the datacenter is local that doesn't necessarily result in any meaningful difference

Oh, absolutely agree. But the datacentre in Memphis is within its jurisdiction. If Nashville decides to stick it with a tax to fund a UBI, they can. Sacramento and Columbus don't have that option.

To be clear, I am not arguing for more datacenters being built the way they are being built. But if you believe AI will replace labour, you want to control those datacenters. Blocking them explicitly cedes that control.

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

#158

Post by piloto_ciego »

a34729t wrote: post #151
piloto_ciego wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Star Trek canon, humanity figured out how to live in utopia by destroying all existing power structures in a Third World War. Perhaps we could try to destroy those power structures without having a giant war lol, just saying. > What is happening now is we have all our existing structure, and the existing requirement to earn money to live within this structure, and the human creative output we want in our eventua…

> Right, I get the frustration, but how many "creators" were doing truly creative and expressive work writing ad copy or making up logos for shoe companies or whatever. Exactly. The "creative" wankery is just people who got college degrees but don't want to work in offices and/or do things with numbers. Sorry, jobs that are fun and desireable aren't in big supply. Do something difficult, boring, disgusting, unsexy an…

The term "elite overproduction" comes to mind.

I had a career in something I loved that was "fun" and even desirable. It was great. I got sick and couldn't do it anymore. I have (begrudgingly, and at times angrily) moved on. I pivoted. I adapted. I did what I had to do to survive and moved forward. I'm not saying I want other people to have to experience that, but I'd say it's given me a sense of clarity about the world that I otherwise wouldn't have.

If you cannot be flexible and adjust under pressure you're going to have a bad time. I think that a lot of people are unwilling to accept change and move forward.

Like, you can also choose to enjoy other things. You can choose to do things that are meaningful that other people don't want to do. Or just... you know, do your own thing. Figure it out. Adapt and do something different. Keep throwing shit against the wall until some of it sticks!

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

#159

Post by ben_w »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #105
ben_w wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently writing a draft blog post on all the issues (and non-issues) with these things, it is now long enough (7k words) I'm slightly wondering if it's less "a blog post" and more "one section of a decent sized book on why we can't have nice things". Here's a visual to consider the implications of things you can do with actually one million satellites of the kind of size scale being discussed: https://raw.githubuse…

> Yes, they really would be this closely spaced: Earth's circumference is 40 million meters Satellites don’t orbit on the ground, which makes the 40m spacing nonsense. And nobody proposes putting a million 120 kW satellites in a single orbit. They really would never be that closely spaced. To approach those densities in a single orbital shell you’d need hundreds of billions of birds in orbit. Spread across all of LEO…

> Satellites don’t orbit on the ground, which makes the 40m spacing nonsense.

Hence why the horizontal scale bar says "40 m to 43 m": Going to 500 km doesn't add much to the orbit's circumference.

> And nobody proposes putting a million 120 kW satellites in a single orbit.

One of my tentative conclusions is that it would be an improvement if they did. But also, there's better contiguous structures to build if you could put that much up.

It's in my blog post because I'm considering all possible arrangements of ways to do this. Current list:

  • Spread them out by altitude while still keeping them in sun-synchronous low earth orbit like SpaceX plan
  • Put them all of them in a single sun-synchronous low earth orbit so none of them can hit each other
  • Spread them out like Starlink currently is
  • Have swarms, where each group has many satellites significantly closer to each other than the usual safety separation, like Google's Project Suncatcher
  • Have fewer, bigger satellites, like Starcloud
> To approach those densities in a single orbital shell you’d need hundreds of billions of birds in orbit. Spread across all of LEO (and only LEO) we’re talking orders of magnitudes more satellites (like, quadrillions).

Matters less than I expected when I started writing. How much so depends on what I end up adding by treating gaps in "full" (up to the safety margin) orbits as the thing of interest and seeing if someone's done a version of this on spherical geometry and also add a time component: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/270937/how-can-you-...

(That I'm researching such questions should explain both why I'm at 7k words and why I've not published it yet).

(One big surprise to me while researching this: along-track, cross-track, and radial positional error per unit time are all much higher than I would have guessed: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/smallsat/2015/all2015/58/).

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

#160

Post by piloto_ciego »

SidewaysView wrote: post #147
piloto_ciego wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly are you here?

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 seen justice too. And injustice. I've lived and struggled and fought and made art and raised a family and written code and built things and suffered and read literature in other tongues and loved and laughed and protested and been tear gassed and done things I regret and done things I've been proud of. I've seen the northern lights from the arctic in winter. I've seen salmon streams so think it looked as if you could cross them on foot. I know words in dying languages and worked to preserve them. You know nothing of me.

You think you can understand me because I yearn for a world that's not based on the transactional need to produce economically useful output. You think you can understand the totality of me because I'd like us to strive for an utopic vision of the world. You think you know me because a science fiction show gives me some hope for us building a better world? You know nothing of me.

But seriously, like, what is your optimal view of the world? What would you have if you were allowed to set policy or chart the course of human events or some other such thing?

Personally, I want to see everyone fed, sheltered, and comfortably able to spend their days doing what they want and not having to churn out crap to justify their right to survive. If you disagree with that, then that's your right, but I would be surprised if you disagreed with that.

Post reply on HN