from the the-inconceivable-has-become-commonplace dept.
SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink internet satellites from Cape Canaveral:
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket launched 60 more Starlink internet relay satellites on Saturday, boosting the total number launched to date to 895 as the company builds out a planned constellation of thousands designed to provide global high-speed broadband service.
Running two days late because of an on-board camera issue, the Falcon 9's twice-flown first stage thundered to life at 11:31 a.m. EDT, pushing the 229-foot-tall rocket away from pad 40 at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. It was the California rocket builder's 19th launch so far this year and its 15th Starlink flight.
[...] With Saturday's launch, SpaceX has put 895 Starlinks into orbit, 180 of them — more satellites than any other company owns — in less than three weeks.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday October 26 2020, @04:14PM (20 children)
means more orbital debris crowding LEO in a few years - like it needed more. Also, more difficulties for astronomers who need a clear sky.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2020, @04:44PM (14 children)
While that is true, LEO debris, isn't so troublesome as debris on a much higher orbit. So long as the debris in LEO won't cause problems when it falls out of the sky. Now, one can complain about the introduction of lots of man made objects, clogging up the sky, but have you heard of airplanes? Sure, maybe not as troublesome as bunches of satellites, but all things considered, they can be tracked and edited out. For the most part, they're not likely to cause problems.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2020, @05:33PM (1 child)
The surface area of the earth is approximately 510,072,000 sq km. In the event that we have 40,000 satellites in orbit around the earth, that would be 1 satellite per 12,751 square km. The surface area of an imaginary sphere that encompasses the earth at low earth orbit around 200miles above the surface, would be even larger. Sure, it could be somewhat annoying and troublesome for star gazing / astronomy, but the problem isn't as great as it's made out to be. At least not, yet. Also, while the Starlink constellation poses an interesting challenge to Space vehicles. It's not an unprecedented problem. Most space objects are already being tracked, because you don't want to inadvertently run into them when you launch your multi-million dollar rocket. It's definitely something to think about, but it's already regulated by various agencies.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2020, @09:52PM
Assuming uniform distribution is a horrible estimation. Do you know the delta-vee needed to put something into orbit out of the equatorial plane? That's not cheap and is not often done for LEOs. Your orbital plane strongly related to your launch latitude.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday October 26 2020, @07:53PM (11 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2020, @08:29PM (10 children)
The mere presence of humans, pollutes the environment. Do you drive a car, ride a bus, use any sort of transportation? You're polluting even more or participating in group pollution. There is no escaping pollution. You want to talk about something that pollutes, how about every single rocket launch? Do you litter? Do you put your trash in a landfill? Do you incinerate your trash? I would hazard a guess that 90% or more of the world's population, can't even spot a satellite. What's more, that's likely to hold true, no matter the country. I would be hard pressed to point out any of the planets, even though I know some are able to be seen with the naked eye. *For some version of seen, being just another bright spot in the sky.* I find it pretty amazing at what we can achieve and support reasonable environmental conservation efforts. As the sentient beings on the top of the food chain*, it's up to us to make sure the Earth is taken care of. Instead of being irate over someone "messing with my sky", one could be glad someone might finally be able to one-up the telecom companies. While I doubt Starlink will ever replace the likes of AT&T, et al. Starlink may be able to bring 21st century connectivity to the world. For better or worse.
*Results may vary, depending on circumstances and disposition of large meat eating animals.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 26 2020, @10:59PM (9 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Tuesday October 27 2020, @12:00AM (1 child)
So you're basically saying, whatabout whataboutism? It seems you like whataboutism as well.
What a nonsensical term.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 27 2020, @11:25AM
Which is also written "that's whataboutism".
The latter is shorter. Therefore it's even better than the original phrase it stands for.
If you think it's nonsensical, that's because of some mental inadequacy within your own cranium, and nothing to do with the word itself. Language evolves, get over it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 27 2020, @03:23PM (6 children)
No, my comments were directly related to your comments. You just didn't like them. You're complaining about a bunch of bright lights "polluting" the sky. You know what pollutes the sky even more than that, City lights. Why do you think Astronomers, have to move to Hawaii, anger the locals, and build an observatory on the top of a sacred mountain? Or as some would say, pollute my view of the beautiful mountain, with their ugly building. Questions make you think.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 27 2020, @03:48PM (5 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 27 2020, @04:31PM (4 children)
Okay, how about, this. The general population doesn't care about your "unpolluted sky" and would like some nice internet. Also, Space is Big and you're whinging about theoretical harm to an expensive hobby. Cry me a river. You can feel wronged, if you feel like it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 27 2020, @10:15PM (3 children)
How many of the "general population" now have this "nice internet" thanks to these satellites? Real numbers please, with a cite. I'd like to know what the benefits really are.
And since when has billions of dollars of international science budgets been dismissable as a "hobby"? Because it's professional scientists who are complaining about the pollution, not just a few amateurs.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday October 29 2020, @03:59PM (2 children)
The problem is a technical challenge, nothing more. SpaceX has done more than just turn a deaf ear as well. They've been working on components to reduce the brightness factor of their satellites. Which is one of the bigger complaints apparently.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-astronomers-visibility-response.html [space.com]
Starlink represents a real possibility for those out in the boondocks to actually get modern communication services. It's a much simpler task for a place like the UK to connect every citizen via good wired infrastructure. The UK has a surface area of 242,495 km squared. While the United States has a surface area of 9,833,520 km squared. The entirety of Europe has a surface area of 10,180,000 km squared. It's much more akin to providing good wired internet service to the whole of Europe. Yet, perhaps China would be a better comparison, it being a single country with 9,596,961 km squared surface area. They've actually got real deserts there too, unlike Europe.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday October 30 2020, @01:37AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday November 02 2020, @03:43PM
'eh, the USA's troubles aren't your troubles, I get it. Neither are Africa's troubles your troubles. Perhaps, you'll care about other Non-European places at some point.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Monday October 26 2020, @05:08PM
Can't astronomers simply go to a planetarium to make observations?
The thing about landline phones is that they never get lost. No air tag necessary.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 26 2020, @07:44PM (3 children)
Small teeny tiny satellites means more orbital debris crowding LEO in a few years - like it needed more. Also, more difficulties for astronomers who need a clear sky.
I hope you don't consider my edit to have distorted your observation too much.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2020, @08:34PM (2 children)
The beauty of satellites in LEO, is that we aren't screwing up something that would take 100 years or more to de-orbit, if it would even de-orbit at all.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday October 26 2020, @11:09PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2020, @12:16PM
Yeah, sure. Keep up your rich Euro whinging about how the poor people are blocking your view of the stars with their damn satellites.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @05:02PM (10 children)
I'm sure the investors are rubbing their hands. Looking at the numbers, there can't be much sky left for competitors wishing to offer comparable specs to customers at comparable investment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink [wikipedia.org]
> On 15 October 2019, the United States Federal Communications Commission submitted filings to the International Telecommunication Union on SpaceX's behalf to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites to supplement the 12,000 Starlink satellites already approved by the FCC.
So yeah, nice. At least they asked an international org about permission to use spectrum everywhere in the world. Who allowed them to monopolize the Sky though? The US government? I would see nothing wrong in shooting down those satellites. They're privately owned (so no international law complications) and outside of anyone's jurisdiction. Maybe a business opportunity for a startup: sky repo.
(Score: 2, Funny) by DannyB on Monday October 26 2020, @05:11PM
Rednecks should also shoot down airplanes too.
And drones. Don't forget to shoot the drones!
Oh, and shooting stars! Definitely to be shooting the shooting stars!
The thing about landline phones is that they never get lost. No air tag necessary.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EvilSS on Monday October 26 2020, @05:24PM (8 children)
This might come as a surprise, but space is kind of big, especially when you start looking at it in 3-dimensions. There is plenty of room for competitors (and there are currently a couple of others looking to compete with them).
I'm pretty sure there are international laws that apply to shooting down satellites, even ones that are privately owned.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2020, @05:45PM (5 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty [wikipedia.org]
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law [wikipedia.org]
Now, if you shot down a satellite, that would be some feat, which a select few countries even have the capability of doing. In the event, some "redneck" shot down a satellite, it would be highly dependent on their countries' view of space law, international treaties, etc., for as to what would happen to them.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @07:07PM (4 children)
> Now, if you shot down a satellite, that would be some feat, which a select few countries even have the capability of doing.
So far, only a select few countries have demonstrated being able to do so, and doing it publicly was kind of the point.
Sounding rockets are relatively small and cheap and are able to reach suborbital tracjectories. Only as payload goes up does become building a carrier rocket become a major feat. You wouldn't need any payload to kill a satellite, just hitting it would suffice. I'd wager building a rocket able to reach Starlink orbits would not be far out of the abilities of many rocket hobbyists.
Now, tracking a satellite? As astronomy photos have shown us, they tend to glow quite brightly in the night sky. Optically tracking them is proably not too hard of a problem to solve. Add some commercial drone avionics and you're good to go?
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 26 2020, @08:39PM (2 children)
Yeah, rocket science is still hard. It's one thing to shoot a rocket up high enough to theoretically hit something zipping around the earth. It's much harder to put that rocket where you want it at just the the right time to actually damage something. Now, if all you wanted was chaos, you might could do some sort of splintered shot that cluttered up the roadway so to speak, like tire spikes. Still, Space is Big and you'd be more likely to have just made a giant rocket that goes up, makes a mess and that's it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @09:22PM (1 child)
I agree it's not trivial. Since a satellite's orbital place and velocity are pretty much constant, its exact position at any point in time is known before launch though. If you have a recorded velocity profile of your rocket, you can calculate where to exactly aim it at before launch. Your flight computer just needs to make some minor course corrections due to atmospheric conditions, which should become negligible by the time of burnout.
A modern commercial drone seems to be able to cope fine with wind throwing it off course. Would it work well enough for a rocket going much faster and effectively moving in 3D space instead of just the XY needed for keeping a drone in position over ground? I don't know, but GPS should work all the way up.
I have not played Kerbal Space Program but I hear it's not *terribly* hard, so not sure if "rocket science" carries the same connotation as it used to in the days of Apollo :)
I for one would welcome some nightly fireworks as a compensation for having all my night sky pics ruined.
(Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Tuesday October 27 2020, @07:25AM
> I have not played Kerbal Space Program but I hear it's not *terribly* hard
LOL. Thanks for the informed comment.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 27 2020, @03:17PM
Assuming you're smart enough to design a rocket and launch it, I would concede the point. Though, if all you're doing is putting together someone else's engine onto a giant tube, and lighting the fire. Yeah, no, you've still got a long way to go.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @08:59PM (1 child)
> especially when you start looking at it in 3-dimensions
Well, duh. Wild guess: SpaceX did not pick the precise orbital planes by accident, but because these happened to be "free". If you were to put a comparable constellation of satellites into orbit, you'd have to pick some other "free" planes. SpaceX specifically picked an orbital place below that of ISS so they could offer sub-100ms latency, a requirement to be eligible for government subsidies (rural bandwidth initiative). ISS needs to periodically maneuver to maintain orbit because at that plane, there is still drag loss. Those satellites on an even lower plane probably need to do that even more often.
Is there enough space to safely deploy a competitors constellation which a) is within the sub-100ms sweet spot while b) not burning so much fuel it would be uncompetitive?
On a tangent, have you seen a graphical representation of the intended orbital tracectories of the Starlink constellation? The one I've seen was for a lot less than the potential 42k satellites and the orbits already started resembling solid shells, kind of like the electron shells of an atom.
Do you know how small an electron is compared to an atom? I'm too lazy to go look it up, but I'd say it's not entirely unreasonable to compare the size relations to those of a satellite and its orbit. You've got a decent chance of knocking an electron out of an atom if you shoot some particles at the area enclosed by its "shell", even though it would seem relatively improbable of hitting such a small moving target.
Do you know any atoms with 42,000 electrons? Being such an atom and getting hit with ionizing radiation would suck.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday October 27 2020, @03:41PM
You've got to take into account the size of the thing you're shooting at it. Now, let's do some dirty math. The earth has aprroximately 510 million square km of surface area. Let's be generous and give each satellite 10 meters squared surface area. Going by your example, you would be shooting at something 51,000,000 times smaller than the atom. With something not much bigger than that. Assuming, you're just going for chaos, there's all kinds of stuff you could do to screw things up for everyone. Aiming at and hitting your target, is a vastly different proposition. Even then, just shooting something up there to "cause problems". What would you do, how would you even do it? Why would it make sense? Rockets / Space Science is hard and costs a lot of money.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 1) by wap3com on Monday October 26 2020, @05:18PM (3 children)
this was on May 25, 2020 and more have already put in orbit.
Astronomers use very long exposure times to get the distance objects.
https://astronomy.com/news/2020/03/nasa-needs-you-to-photograph-starlink-satellites-with-your-smartphone [astronomy.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @05:34PM (1 child)
The newer satellites have sun shades.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 26 2020, @05:53PM
Because it's so bright.
The thing about landline phones is that they never get lost. No air tag necessary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @06:24PM
who cares? astronomers can rent a telescope on the moon for all i care. i want better internet!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @09:43PM
penis
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 26 2020, @09:56PM
and since it will be in space, good luck removing your penis from my anus.
too many clowns, too little time.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Username on Tuesday October 27 2020, @12:07AM
These rural flyovers think they should get the internet? How dare they they interfere with my 100k USD of astronomy toys. Pfft, why should I have to settle for just driving around in my ferrari or sailing my yacht?