Starlink Satellites Tracker(findstarlink.com) |
Starlink Satellites Tracker(findstarlink.com) |
Before the launches, the HN crowd promised repeatedly that nobody would be able to see these satellites and they would not change the night sky at all, and that that looking up in wonder is only something that old people and luddites do, because nothing is more important than global always-on sacred holy internet access.
Starship will launch say 400 to LEO (rather than 60 as now), could it launch 100 to a higher orbit to reduce the impact? More starship launches (good for proving), and as the satelites deploy at a higher altitude they'll be darker
Can you point them out? No, they're invisible at their operational altitude.
Go visit New Delhi or Lahore in mid winter and give us your subjective opinion of the air quality.
https://www.google.com/search?q=delhi+air+pollution&client=u...
Clean up the damn lawn!
You will probably sooner see EU, Russia and China decide that it is their strategic interest to have their own constellations. As it was with GPS. Currently we have the United States' Global Positioning System (GPS), Russia's Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS), China's BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) and the European Union's Galileo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation
Your 'absolute travesty' is only temporary.
Edit: Apparently they just added service in France today as well.
This is akin to people complaining about how wind mills ruin their views of things.
I know that these sats will affect many telescopic observations, but that's been happening a long time. In most cases, satellite streaks are algorithmically removed.
You've likely got mains power and probably water (Sure I know some places are off the grid competely, but it's rare). Why don't those cables have fibre along side them to connect you.
Can Mongolia tax SpaceX? What about Chad?
Or is this just some American corporation doing whatever it wants, to hell with the consequences for the rest of the world?
Oh... but we're bringing internet to the world! Just buy this $2,000 USD base unit and subscribe for $100 USD monthly so that your Yurt in the middle of no-where-ville has high-speed internet... What? You have no shoes and only one pair of clothes? Just buy new ones on Amazon and get next day delivery!
--
Bringing internet to the world is a noble goal, particularly if it's not brought to the world by the likes of Facebook, Google or Amazon with their clear ulterior motives. Unlocking access to the world's knowledge is critical for the future of all people... but we shouldn't achieve that goal through force, which is what is happening now with these massive multi-thousand satellite constellations against the protest of nations and people alike. The whole "get over it" attitude is staggeringly in bad taste.
I also highly doubt these mega-constellations + launch costs are cheaper than putting up PTP and PTMP radio dishes in regions that desire the internet. We can push multiple gigabits through these dishes now for backhaul "lines" and there's been great organizations installing these systems throughout Africa and other places for more than two decades. These folks just need more funding... but radio dishes aren't sexy - instead we're putting these satellites up in space where they impact every human being on the planet, instead of just those who are using them.
So the question should be - how can an American corporation deprive other countries of accessible view of the sky for profit and get away with it? Because it might be accessible by everyone eventually? That's frankly not good enough. Elon Musk isn't doing this as a charity, but even if it was it still wouldn't be acceptable.
Your solution to simply deprive rural communities/poor countries of internet access is a non-starter. What you're ignoring is that the positive externalities of the tech vastly, vastly outweigh the negative (and supposedly fixable) externalities. Not to mention it's a take that's rather selfish since you're not the one that pays the price of banning this tech.
It's really, really hard for me to believe that these attacks on Starlink are truly proportional to the perceived harm. I think that 95% of the upset is directed at SpaceX as a proxy vendetta against Musk, billionaires, or the overall tech industry.
I understand that this interference will end up being several times more frequent. However, for many years, satellite streaks have been algorithmically removed from observations. It's possible that those algorithms will need to be upgraded.
That's a small price to pay in exchange for robust and high speed Internet becoming available to huge numbers of people all over the world.
Which, frankly, feels rather sordid.
And in any event Starlink is nothing compared to the assholes planning satellite billboards.
The money you and I put into it are bootstrapping bringing Internet access to hundreds of millions who would otherwise not get it.
Because when the rich western countries have launched lots and lots of satellits then poor countries do of course have the right to launch just as many, with no further caution than we use today at launch and positioning, when it's their turn to shine on the night shy.
I'm sure my opinion of Starlink is clear..
The main problem that I have here is that the uniformity of a full Starlink setup means the entire earth is covered in it, and literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it. That's what's absolutely not cool in my opinion.
Even if I grant you that it's not going to be about supplying internet to poorer countries, this reason alone is sufficient. Depriving rural communities of internet over such a small negative externality is a non-starter.
> literally no one else except for Americans has any say in it
Poland emits significant amounts of carbon pollution, which impacts me, and I have no say in it.
Some negative externalities in the global commons is inevitable. You, personally, are contributing to that. Your weather and GPS satellites are contributing to it.
The solution therefore can't be a puritanical "I will not allow any global externalities whatsoever.". It's an impractical non-starter and a rule that nobody anywhere follows nor should they try to follow it.
So of course it isn't about not allowing any global externalities - but this one feels incredibly lopsided. GPS benefits everyone, at a very low externality cost. Starlink benefits the lucky wealthy few(and I am talking about the subscribers here, not just the owners), at an absolutely huge externality cost. Is it worth it? You say that it is, I don't - I don't know where the line is here, but I don't think it's where Elon Musk thinks it is.
[citation needed]
Also it's not just the subscribers. The existence of starlink as a competitor will probably have a significant positive impact on millions of people.
So your whole argument on pricing is based on a beta product with limited availability currently. Because prices have never dropped significantly once the product has actually reached mass market adoption?
To the contrary, as more subscribers join the service, satellite throughput capacities will eventually be saturated and will require more satellites or more advanced and powerful satellites.
Meanwhile, constant replenishment of the orbital network means that it's not a build-and-amortise asset. There's not a point at which revenue pays-off the asset and can sustain a reduction in subscription fees.
1) reductions in cost of launches 2) reductions in cost of satellites 3) bandwidth capacity improvements per satellite
I could keep going, but it’s obvious you’ve convinced yourself of a narrative and aren’t willing to think rationally about the topic, so I’m not going to waste my time.
For what it's worth, in order for the constellation to reach steady state the number of launches in the last month will need to be proportional to the total # of orbit. So if the constellation has 42,000 satellites and the satellites last 10 years on average (IMO that's an optimistic lifespan), you need to launch around 350/month just to maintain the size of the constellation.
Additionally, 42,000 was a worst case for the number needed and only if things go exceedingly well with the service. I think people quote that number too much when in reality there's likely to be under 5000 (from SpaceX at least).
For the major brightness issues sure, but they are not invisible or undetectable while in operation. Surely the effects are proportional to both the recent launches and the whole size.
I think it's a bit early to dismiss the whole sky effect of multiple Starlink-style constellations in operation.
Also isn't Starlink intending to do launches for the rest of time? There is always a value for the last month of launches- they'll never stop launching right?
Just thinking out loud.
Once you start using any optics they will be visible.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2101/2101.00374.pdf#:~:te....
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-stellar-ma...
I might sit down and do the math to see how 1500 satellites at mag 6 compares to 60 at mag 2.
> I think it's a bit early to dismiss the whole sky effect of multiple Starlink-style constellations in operation.
I wasn't trying to dismiss their effect, just address the people who say "you think those 60 are bad, imagine when there are 20,000", or "there go the Americans, ruining the night sky for the whole world".
I have no idea how oneweb or blue origin will handle this issue.
> Also isn't Starlink intending to do launches for the rest of time?
Their satellites are designed for a 5 year lifespan. Without constant boosts, they will deorbit and burn up fully in the atmosphere. This is great, because they will not become space junk, and they can't cause the dreaded kessler syndrome. The downside is that they will need to be constantly replenished. Hopefully this will be streamlined when they can launch 600 at a time, reducing the number of launches by a factor of 10.
Basically, if SpaceX makes it, we'll probably have a Starship-launched lunar observatory quite soon, in the grand scheme of things.
This doesn't help the situation now, although there is so much screaming from the anti-Musk people as well as the pro-Musk people that it's hard to tell what the actual impact of the now-somewhat-albedo-mitigated starlink v.whatever satellites are. All of the coverage is breathless sky-is-falling stuff.
In any case, the situation is temporary. Either SpaceX makes it and we get a far side of Luna observatory and LEO/MEO telescopes besides, or they don't and in a few years Starlink all falls down and burns.
EDIT: Removed "past times" parameter as suggested in comments. Also note you can remove also see loads of other satellites with an unadorned URL : https://james.darpinian.com/satellites
I think it made more sense when there were less satellites, but this was a pretty common opinion from the start.
When I originally created this it was so sparse that it was really easy to distinguish, now that would probably be a useful feature.
It's also just not that simple to implement. I threw this together really quickly, and the only data I am using is the orbit tracks, it doesn't include whether or not a satellite is on station yet.
This was in the Bay Area. I'm living in Fairfax now.
I have been following Starlink since. I haven't had much luck. I thought their telemetry could be configured within seconds, but I guess their are other variables according to Startlink? Oh yea---there is part of me hoping man doesn't overdo it though. This was great, but thousands would be another story.
https://wyclif.substack.com/p/li-bai-and-the-abominable-prag...
Edit: Aahhh I see now, it's meant for stargazers (well, starlinkgazers) and it only shows the visible passes. Got it. I'm used to using sat trackers for ham radio purposes and they show all passes, that's why I was confused.
https://aerospace.org/reentries?field_reentry_type_target_id...
Give it a location and it will tell you all the bright objects that should be visible
Both for sentry mode (antitheft) and autonomy training.
Of course it would be regulatory nightmare.
Someone told me there was a line of them last night, probably from the most recent launch, but I couldn't find them.
The coolest satellite sighting I’ve had was when I was up on Mt. Hood a few summers ago and could see it really well. There was a meteor shower going on too.
Large mountains and infinite space are humbling in a good way.
That night was quite a journey. :-)
Hmm, maybe that's why he moved to Texas...
("no jury in the world will convict a baby — except maybe Texas")
Maybe I'm wrong to not find it funny, but I'm not a buzzkill in general, I just think this joke doesn't work and needs to be workshopped.
And if we did get up to the ridiculous scale to block even half a percent of sunlight I'm pretty sure that would actually be a good thing.
Every 5 astronomical magnitudes corresponds to a factor of 100 difference in brightness, so magnitude 2 is (100^0.2)^4 or about 40 times brighter than magnitude 6. So they're pretty similar, 1500 satellites at magnitude 6 are about 2/3 as bright as 60 satellites at magnitude 2.
Why? I think it's much more likely that they either fail, or (eventually) launch every single satellite that their licenses allow. More satellites increases the proportion of the market they can address, and if they can profitably launch a satellite, they can profitably launch a second.
I guess you can look at the orbit parameters ? I am assuming if the satellites are not yet on station they won't share the exact same plane as those that are in station. They are elevated over few months as they are spread to the right position I believe
It would take a fair bit of work on making the heuristic robust, so I don't plan to do it. If you're interested in doing so feel free to download the source (just scrape it from the website) and go at it.
When you look at a city from orbit, you see millions of radios all stacked on top of each other, screaming. That can never scale as well as a distributed array of towers.
I wonder if they might choose to do this so the sats keep more of their onboard fuel, and will be able to keep themselves in orbit a bit longer before the inevitable re-entry burn up.
It would mean that 1 DOA satellite means bringing down 2, but that might be worth it if the DOA rate is low.
They are getting a bit too good at reducing Starlink visibility lately so I could definitely welcome an event like that. :)
I'd love to see a theatrical launch. :)
And those drag losses are a lot lower keeping all the satellites inside the rocket rather than having each experience its own drag.
Might be worth putting an ion drive on the f9 2nd stage for that reason...