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

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

    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.

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree, if it wasn’t Musk there wouldn’t be so much hate most probably, starlink is objectively good for all the people living in rural zones (in some cases just outside of big cities) where internet doesn’t arrive because other companies don’t want to spend the money for it.

      • piecat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s plenty of companies that do rural internet. They’re called WISPs (wireless ISPs). Usually small business owners willing to get more customers.

        We would give free internet to more than a few farmers willing to let us mount on a silo or elevator. We put up a backhaul, access point, and give them a connection. Free internet for the land owner, we expand our territory, win/win. Then the neighbors just point a link at the AP and we charge them.

        Only real requirement is line-of-sight. Towers can reach far. Existing structures usually work, otherwise they can sometimes erect a small tower.

        • Bucket_of_Truth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ll do ya one better than that.
          Because of existing telecom networks its nearly impossible for new fiber companies to do any work in large to medium cities in the US. Even Google couldn’t do it because Comcast/Spectrum/TW wouldn’t allow them to lay cable. In areas not already served by the big ISPs though there’s nearly no red tape. Sandy, Oregon (pop 12,000) laid a municipal fiber network for $30/month. This guy in Michigan said fuck it after he couldn’t get anything laid to his house and built his own ISP.

    • Widowmaker_Best_Girl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The actual sane take. I swear musk is constantly living rent free in way too many peoples minds.

      Honestly, what I took from this is we should have more telescopes that operate outside of the orbits of commercial satellites.

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

        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.