this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
141 points (96.7% liked)

Science

13262 readers
35 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I would ask people to consider the benefits to the globe of having ubiquitous 100+ Mbps internet no matter where you are.

Most of the people, myself included, who get Starlink get it because there's no other viable option - usually due to distance from towns and cities.

Certainly there is some pollution as a result of building and sending the 2,000+ satellites, but it may be a net positive compared to the environmental impact of digging a trench to each property, manufacturing and laying a fibre optic cable to the end user.

The end user routers use about 30 watts which is also a higher cost compared to the 5 watts or so most other technologies use. Mine runs on solar.

I'm not happy about giving Elon money for this service of course given his behaviour - he's not the majority owner at least.

The unintended interference is probably something that can be designed away to some degree - I'm guessing harmonics from the beam forming are tricky if that's the cause.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not having an issue by itself, but I'm having an issue with the fact that a private company has arbitrarily been able to cover much of the earth with stuff that is, at best, disruptive. Let's not forget also forget that the main reason starlink exists is military, not bringing internet to rural areas.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

There are more companies coming.

The problem with low earth orbit satellites is you need lots of them since they fly so low. Most smaller countries couldn't afford to do it.

Here's a visualiser of where they are right now.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

You think launching a bunch of satellites is cheaper than laying fiber optic over long stretches of the country?

And no, it doesn't need to be buried.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

well starlink sats run on solar too, no ? which makes them a sustainable choice too over fiber. and scientists can get their rich countries to fund orbital observatories also ? but SpaceX can be proactive in this regard also and deactivate some starlink sats in certain timeframes over certain regions to allow research. its kind of mixed up situation.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

You also have to think about the end of life of every one of those satellites, they all get burned. All those solar panels, batteries, carbon, resin et al get chucked in a bonfire in the upper atmosphere at the end of the day.