1212
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Alien 1: "I don't get it, we've been trying to contact them for ages now. You don't think they sacrificed their chance to join the interstellar community in order to have better phone reception or something, did they?"

Alien 2: "Well maybe if you didn't keep sticking probes up their asses, they'd be more communicative!"

[-] demizerone@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

Science cannot get in the way of profits!

[-] r_deckard@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

Disclaimer - I have a starlink terminal. I feel that the complaints should be made to the various governments that haven't mandated modern terrestrial technologies to those of us outside metro areas.

I live 14km/9m from a town with underground fibre optic. The best I can hope for is geo-synch satellite with data caps and latency around 600ms. I will never see fibre optic rolled out here. I can sort of understand, it's quite expensive and needs to be balanced against income from operations to justify it. But they rolled out electricity, and they rolled out PSTN, so the justification was found in those cases.

So, Starlink found a need and filled it. Had governments filled the need instead, the problem wouldn't exist.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 5 points 1 day ago

While I don't begrudge you your choice, I don't think this is a good defence of Starlink. It sounds too close to defence of leaded gasoline.

Someone else not solving a problem isn't a good defence for someone who creates a solution to that one problem that ends up being a net negative for humanity as a whole, and it's definitely not a defence of a second generation that makes a known problem with the technology even worse.

[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Not a fan of Starlink. But net negative to humanity? Idk about that.

Let say we do lose that band of the em spectrum. Does that take away more than we gain by improving the life of the dude above and many like him?

As much as I like science and space, shouldn't "humanity's" first concern be the well-being of humans? I'd say we live at a time where Internet access should be a public utility, not having it marks a dramatic difference in opportunity. Starlink isn't that, but it's better than nothing.

Having scientists looking at space is important, but it doesn't help everyday joe, who needs the most help.

That being said. I agree it is up to governments to find their balls and regulate the use of space. Like they did with gasoline.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 3 points 23 hours ago

There are so technological advances that have saved many, many lives thanks to our space science. Starlink doesn't just endanger astronomical observation - it endangers other forms of space communication as well as our practical ability to put up (or use) other satellites. This means less accurate earth science too, including making it harder to predict extreme weather events, track climate change, etc. Things that save lives are being put in jeopardy.

[-] LePoisson@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

But they rolled out electricity, and they rolled out PSTN, so the justification was found in those cases.

Yeah, the justification was the federal government basically forcing providers to do that. Remember back in 2008 when we handed a bunch of money to telecom companies to expand their networks? Then they laughed at us and just kept the money and basically said fuck you? That also was a part of this act, or at least related to it, since broadband was added to it as an amendment in 2008.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act

Anyways, point being the companies didn't roll our electricity and pstn to rural areas out of the goodness of their heart or even a strict profit motive. It took a literal act of congress for it to happen.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 23 hours ago

I will never see fibre optic rolled out here. I can sort of understand, it’s quite expensive and needs to be balanced against income from operations to justify it. But they rolled out electricity, and they rolled out PSTN, so the justification was found in those cases.

Yeah, but you see, the electricity and telephone rollouts were done in the New Deal era or shortly thereafter. The government has been subjected to way too much regulatory capture since then to ever consider doing something that would help the public at the expense of corporate profits nowadays.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago

While I don't begrudge you your choice, I don't think this is a good defence of Starlink. It sounds too close to defence of leaded gasoline.

Someone else not solving a problem isn't a good defence for someone who creates a solution to that one problem that ends up being a net negative for humanity as a whole, and it's definitely not a defence of a second generation that makes a known problem with the technology even worse.

Starlink satellites are like vampires. If we cut off the head of the original vampire they'll all die. I suggest launching Elon musk into the sun on one of his starships

[-] lengau@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago
[-] Embarrassingskidmark@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

Ah good point, he is rather toxic

[-] gandalf_der_12te 12 points 1 day ago

Honestly astronomy from earth is notoriously difficult, for various reasons.

  • there's already a lot of light pollution, due to atmospheric light dispersion, so finding a good spot for telescopes is already difficult.
  • there's the issue that images become blurred, again because atmosphere.
  • We already have telescopes in space, why no re-use them with an additional camera?

Spaceflight is unstoppable at this point. I look at the colonization of Mars like a distillation process: we remove all of the restless assholes and billionaires from Earth, and they leave us and leave us the fuck alone. That's a good thing; We should support it.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 30 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Honestly astronomy from space is notoriously difficult, for various reasons.

  • It takes a lot of energy and infrastructure to propel a telescope into space.
  • Radiation can cause issues with electronics, so they all need to be hardened.
  • Typically satellites use older proven technology to make sure that they don't run into new issues, which means they're not able to be bleeding edge.
  • New technology is next to impossible to add to a space telescope, meaning upgrades rarely happen, if ever. Ground telescopes can continuously upgrade with relative ease.

There's a lot of pros and cons. Neither solution is better than the other. They're only better at certain things. We need both.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

The seemingly straightforward solution is that SpaceX needs to be legally required to get into the radio astronomy business. As part of being allowed to launch such noisy satellites. If they are going to wreck radio astronomy on Earth's surface, they should have to launch orbital radio telescopes of such quality and quantity that SpaceX is actually a vast net boon on radio astronomy. This should simply be a legally required cost of doing business if they want to launch so many noisy satellites. Yes, these orbital telescopes would have a finite lifespan and need to be regularly replaced to be updated, but thankfully the greatest rocket company on Earth will be legally required to launch them regularly.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

That could potentially help, but only to nations/groups that they give the data to. Other groups would still be getting fucked.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It's scientific data, and considering the context, the rightful property of all mankind. Give it universally to any an all.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 19 hours ago

Easier said than done.

[-] CouncilOfFriends@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 day ago

The problem is radio wavelengths are much longer than visible light thus the huge size of radio telescopes on earth, which would also make a space-based one a challenge

[-] gandalf_der_12te 5 points 1 day ago
[-] urfavlaura@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago

elon musk is a terrorist that will make astronomy harder if not impossible if he trashes orbits too much

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 14 points 1 day ago

SpaceX is in the business of launching satellites. It's in their best interest if ground-based astronomy gets harder. They should be required to pay for their negative externalities.

[-] Xenny@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Hahahaha imagine if we made everyone pay for their negative externalities! It would probably be paradise.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago

It would certainly make it a whole lot harder to be an oil baron.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

For how lauded the dude is as a visionary entrepreneur, I'm still wondering what one single thing he's done right to earn the title with any of his businesses. Everything he touches turns to shit even when accounting for run-of-the-mill corporate practices. The dude sucks.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 55 points 2 days ago

"Don't worry, you can just build one on the moon. You can even pay me to use my rockets to get there." - Elon

[-] Zron@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

*Terms and conditions apply

**Rocket may or may not be capable of reaching low earth orbit, payload fractions subject to change, not responsible for loss of equipment, habitat, or lives

[-] kilgore_trout@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago

It will also harm the ability to use rockets in the long time, as satellites are abandoned when decommissioned, and create debris in low earth orbit.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Starlink satellites are low enough that they'll burn up after a few years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Moah 114 points 2 days ago

Sending so many satellites also requires so many rocket launchers that Google passed on it because it was too polluting.

Starlink is the poster child of "fuck you, I got mine."

[-] brlemworld@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Google is the second largest shareholder of Space X.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

Google Ventures got a 7.5% stake in SpaceX in 2008 (which wasn't the second-largest share at the time). Can you point me to resources that say they're the second-largest shareholder of SpaceX today?

[-] nonfuinoncuro@lemm.ee 36 points 2 days ago
  1. get rid of "do no evil"
  2. invest in evil
  3. ?????
  4. profit!
[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 122 points 2 days ago

starlink wouldn't have a leg to stand on (in the US, can't speak for elsewhere) if isps were held to installing/maintaining/upgrading infrastructure that was already paid for by the federal government decades ago and then the isps just didn't do the work.

[-] Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 day ago

Privatized networks are a crime and it should be treated legally as such.

Public network for the public.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] bstix@feddit.dk 247 points 2 days ago

Fuckin space garbage is what it is.

Yes it was impressive that they landed a rocket again once, but the quantity of launches and satellites is doing nothing good for anyone. It should've been a stepping stone for better technology, but instead they're just mining money. Privately owned space engineering is a disgrace to humanity.

Space engineering used to unite even the worst opponents as with the international space station, but now those institutions are underfunded, while billionaire space-musk can shoot his loads into the atmosphere without any regard to the rest of the worlds population living inside said sphere.

Tax the asshole already.

load more comments (20 replies)
[-] Kyrgizion@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago

I'm sure Musk is perfectly willing to turn certain constellations off at specific times... For a price, of course.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago

Great. Musk is building a Sophon.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
1212 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

5408 readers
2176 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS