681
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2023
681 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
59288 readers
5647 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well the issue is that not everything is black and white.
On one hand, these satellites can potentially absolutely wreak havok on astronomy, and our own view of the night sky. Nobody wants that.
On the other hand, in a few years, these satellites are able to provide cheap internet all over the planet, which would allow poor remote communities in South America, Africa, and Asia access to the internet, which is practically impossible through any other means. IMO, its worth the tradeoff. I think helping people is more important than astronomy, but I recognize that that's just my opinion
Okay but you're falling into Elon's trap. You can't weigh future potential against current harm naively. Particularly when it comes from somebody with a long history of over promising and under delivering. Since we pay the full price up front (loss of science, etc) but will never reap the full benefits promised.
I agree that we can't trust Elon.. but hasn't Starlink already helped Ukrainians? I remember he messed it up for a bit, but if we took Elon out of the picture but kept Starlink, the debate gets more interesting.
If you are like the guy you are responding to and prioritize people over astrology(which I'm not sure I do tbh), I don't think they are being naive weighing future potential vs current harm. Easy internet access anywhere in the world vs deep space study from Earth isn't black and white.
Personally, I'd choose space, but I can imagine a lot of people would choose the more humanitarian approach.
To my knowledge absolutely nothing critical to Ukranian defense uses Starlink.
And again, what is niave is to not heavily discount any claims Elon makes. Starlink provides neglible value currently, what potential might exist is imaginary.
The best thing for the world is to realize Elon was a sunk cost and move on
Elon already fucked with their starlink I believe, but I didn’t recheck to be fair. Also seriously, don’t trust that man with shit.
I tried to separate the conversation from Elon to keep it more honest about the benefits of accessible internet for everyone anywhere on Earth. If we just want to do a "Fuck Elon" conversation, I'm on your side and that conversations done.
but why would the potential benefits of satellite internet be imaginary, but the potential benefits of deep space study not be?
and again, I'd way rather progress on the space front than help humanity, but thankfully those aren't my decisions to make.
So why do you think that launching thousands of satellites would be more cost-effective than other options?
Satellites are expensive.
Launching them into space is expensive.
Cell phones, and cell phone towers are cheap.
Elon Musk is launching them into an orbit where they'll decay in 10 years anyway, meaning you'll have to perpetually launch these thousands, or even 10s of thousands of satellites into space just to keep service.
Traditional satellite companies launch fewer numbers of many satellites into the sky to cover large swaths of land instead. Since they aim at rural areas (ex: the Ocean with no one there), they are superior in a cost/efficacy perspective. Yes, there's less bandwidth, but there's less people, so its a fine tradeoff.
If you need more density, building cell phone networks / cell phone towers is just superior.
If you need even more density than what cell phones can give you, then there's always fiber optic directly.
Lmao go run some fiop in the Amazon and let me know how that shakes out
Well, a quick google makes me think a single cell tower and a single satellite are close to the same price.
I think it would take a lot more work and money to set up towers in the poor countries/areas infrastructure doesn't exist/hard terrain/desolate areas/warzones/middle of the ocean/etc. But you'd have to weigh in the sacrificing space, which is invaluable to me personally.
I just think it's an interesting conversation to have. It feels like a small part of the debate of helping the planet vs going to space.
All the satellites in question burn up within 10ish years due to their placement in orbit. In fact, a large number of SpaceX satellites already exploded due to mistakes during their deployment.
Cell towers don't burn up like that just sitting around.
Cool. We already have Hughesnet and have had it for decades.
Well, I don't really see the issue with some satellites blowing up at first. So did some of the first space ships. That's just part of advancements.
If there wasn't the interference involved with the Starlink satellites, personally I'd prefer satellites over covering the earth in a grid of cell towers every 25ish miles tbh.
But sure, Hughesnet works fine. If you need service outside of a developed area, it should be capable enough.
I was looking more at a thought of what was more important, space exploration or easily accessible unlimited information for anyone, anywhere on earth. I keep choosing space, but I was hoping to get more of an interesting conversation I guess.
You don't understand then. The Starlink satellites are designed to fall out of the sky, explicitly. They're at an extremely low orbit. The entire constellation will fall out of the sky on a regular basis.
That's the explicit design of Starlink. Its collossally stupid. The lower your orbit, the sooner you crash into Earth. Starlink has chosen one of the lowest orbits.
Hughesnet's satellite is in contrast, in a 500+ year orbit. So they don't have to replace their satellite all the time. Also, there's only a few of them, its not like Starlink that has thousands of them.
By being lower in the sky, Starlink satellites have a limited range and only cover a small area. They need many, many,many satellites to even have hope, extending the costs and destroying the feasibility of the entire design.
For the third time, you cannot separate the grifter from the grift. That's not "Fuck Elon", that's "starlink is not, and never will be, what was promised"
Similarly, you can't weigh an abstract possibility versus a real cost. You want the conversation to be some philosophical discourse about social vs societal value. But it's not that, it's a real situation right now.
And in this real life situation, we have to evaluate what starlink actually is - - a failed toy for wealthy early adopters - - and not what some abstract "could be".
Especially when we know for a fact that any public promises of that potential are certainly intended to mislead and not inform.
so this is just an anti-Elon conversation right? It doesn't feel like an honest conversation about the actual topic.
We agree, Fuck Elon, been great talking. Cheers
It's definitely not an honest conversation when you've deliberately and repeatedly chosen to misunderstand what's being said.
It's time to grow up and stop believing hucksters and grifters.
I'm not misunderstanding. You are calling it a failed toy, when it works. It's definitely being used by the Ukrainian military and was considered essential, that's why it was in the news when Elon disconnected it for a day, and why America and other sources are paying for it in the Ukraine. They wouldn't be doing that for a failed toy.
For almost the same price as setting up traditional internet at your house, you could do get Starlink and see for yourself. My buddy has it, and it works just fine.
Starlink has shown tangible benefits. The issue is that the satellites are interrupting deep space study. That should be the conversation, but some reason it just keeps coming back to Musk. It's a waste of a conversation.
If he gets abducted by aliens today, then what? Starlink doesn't just disappear. Neither do electric cars. These things will go on without him