Scientists, looking deep into space, have long voiced their concerns that satellites are encroaching on their ability to study the cosmos.
I do wonder how much the average people commenting would care if musk had nothing to do with this.
It’s an issue, but it’s an issue scientists knew was coming for decades now. Starlink isn’t the only company putting satellites into low earth orbit. They aren’t the first and the amount of them will just keep coming.
What we need is regulations and requirements for how many, what purpose, how they’ll be dealt with if something goes wrong and when they’re no longer needed, etc. Getting people to share satellites that are already there (when possible) and not putting up satellites that are redundant or don’t provide that much benefit versus non-satellite options or further orbit options will be important.
But all these mindless circlejerkers only talking about musk and wanting starlink “taken down” are really polluting the topic with meaningless bullshit. It’s unfortunate people are bringing these mindless circlejerks over from reddit.
LEO shouldn’t be some billionaire playground to make even more money. The Kessler syndrome is a very real threat to our future
So we just shouldn’t have high speed sattelite internet for people in rural areas or disaster areas because some people make money from it?
Or they should only be there if a government runs the sattelite? Because that wouldn’t change the effect they have on telescopes.
This is the kind of comment I was talking about.
On Reddit I remember getting called a “space Karen” for pointing this out in a discussion about Starlink. Elon Musk fanboys are some of the worst. Second only to Q fanboys.
all these comments discussing ukraine wartime internet, or poorer communities in south america. meanwhile, i have zero interest in musk, but starlink has been a fantastic Internet option for me in rural US.
my other options are borderline unusable DSL, or a couple of line-of-sight wireless providers which would require cutting down who knows how many trees to even have a hope of connectivity.
there are a significant number of people living in this area, but no decent wired or cellular internet options and despite my state getting a large federal grant to improve internet speeds, I have zero expectation it will be improved for me.
Same here, we’re not rural enough to get grant money but not suburban enough to get cable. And everybody who says Hughesnet is fine has definitely never used it. I could never have worked from home through the pandemic if we hadn’t gotten starlink.
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.
For instance: it could help remote villages or third world countries. But Starlink costs a pretty penny in western money those places lack. Otherwise they would already have traditional infrastructure.
