Scientists, looking deep into space, have long voiced their concerns that satellites are encroaching on their ability to study the cosmos.

  • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Trevader24135@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

          • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

            • SoPunny@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                  • smokeythebear@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

        • ThoughtGoblin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • driving_crooner
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can’t weigh future potential against current harm naively.

          And if we’re going to play that game, then space knowledge for exploration is the biggest future potential gain that it would be tampered by starlink satellites.

      • tempest@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Isn’t Starlink still heavily limited by the geography you are in. As in there cannot be too many subscribers in any one place because it will use all the capacity? If that’s still the case seems doubtful it will ever bring anything cheap to the masses.

      • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        which would allow poor remote communities in South America, Africa, and Asia access to the internet, which is practically impossible through any other means.

        “Practically impossible” is a horrible way to describe it. It’s not practically impossible; the solution and methods are eminently doable, they just aren’t done (yet) because of cost in poor areas with relatively weak governments. Most of those areas will get reliable non-satellite internet in the years to come.

        We can talk up the good of systems like Starlink without hyping it up as delivering something that is otherwise impossible.

      • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure, but you’re creating a false dichotomy to get to your conclusion. The way Starlink is creating its satellite network is not the only way to create one. Viasat doesn’t blanket the globe in satellites.

    • qisope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • emehlya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.