Deep space experts prove Starlink is interfering in scientific work
abc.net.au
abc.net.au
This article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remotely similar. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Satellite telecommunication is greatly improving life on earth. Astrophysics, not so much. Just last week there was a front page HN article about how satellites may replace undersea cables for niche use cases. Starlink is just a major player in the space. This article is trying to utilize Musk’s negative reputation to its own end. The truth of the article would have been much clearer if it simply mentioned Starlink as an example.
There’s something to be said for satellites making true immersion in “natural beauty” impossible. Making that out to be negative is a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think it’s selfish to wish to hinder the massive gains in utility for humanity satellites bring.
these kind of world-consequence decisions are supposed to be weighed and judged by The People In Power, rather than justified after the fact.
Yes, telecoms is important; they could have justified that importance before a tribunal of people affected by the installation of the fleet.
What happened instead?
They did what they want, were hit with complaints, and justified the existence afterwards by A) minimizing the impact of the science (absolutely unknown and unpredictable, by the way), much like what you're doing, and B) expounded on the absolute importance of global telecom coverage (a little bit more know-able.)
That's not an appropriate order of events for something that could have prolonged effects on an entire sector of research.
The closest thing is the Outer Space Treaty, which assigns responsibility to governments [1].
Quoting a key part from its Wikipedia page …
“Resolution 1721 also further cemented the committee's role in preserving space for peaceful purposes. It stated that international law and the UN Charter applied in outer space and directed the committee to study and report on legal problems arising from space exploration. It directed all states to inform the committee of all launches into space for the UN's public registry. It directed the committee to keep close contact with governmental and non-governmental organizations concerned with space matters, as well as to act as an exchange of information relating to space activities.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Committee_on_th...
"But it's not much" you'll say. Yeah, wait another 10-20 years, with all the additional shit launched into space.
And wind turbines’ neighbours find them unsightly and the new Virgin Hotel on 29th Street blocks some of my sunlight. This isn’t a novel problem.
> Just last week there was a front page HN article about how satellites may replace undersea cables for niche use cases.
They won't, that article was stupid.
Edit: Or, well, you added "niche" and the article very much didn't. It's true that a tiny fraction of data might use satellites instead, but there's going to be no meaningful "replacement".
Agree. They mention “SKAO are now in discussion with Starlink about what can be done about the interference caused by its satellites,” but fail to mention specifics. It’s obvious we aren’t going to ban LEO for this field. What can be done to mitigate the damage? Is it nontrivial? Does that require a regulatory mechanism to help pay for an enforce?
Put another way, when China starts doing the same thing, what design precautions will we want them to have deployed, and how can we set the example as the first movers?
> In a study, published in the Astronomy & Astrophysics journal, scientists used a powerful telescope in the Netherlands to observe 68 of SpaceX's satellites and detected emissions from satellites are drifting out of their allocated band, up in space.
Huh? If you "use a telescope to observe the satellites", that's not proof of interference.
That part is pretty clear.
"detectable" and "interferes with experiments" are different levels. And there are different thresholds for "interferes".
This applies to the bands it's supposed to be in, and to the bands it's not supposed to be in.
Hard disagree for me. Astrophysics have previously confirmed some radical scientific theories that eventually gave rise to technology today such as Einstein’s General Relativity.
Starlink has done nothing for me.
Einstein wasn't thinking about GPS satellites when he came up with relativity, he was just trying to understand how nature works. And a greater understanding of the fundamental workings of nature is what makes more things possible.
https://medium.com/swlh/everything-that-can-be-invented-has-...
> This article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remotely similar. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Satellite telecommunication is greatly improving life on earth. Astrophysics, not so much.
I was just trying to find out what astrophysics has contributed to life on earth lately (50 years seems like a generous window) because I’m inclined to agree with the claim but would like to know if I’m wrong.
I picked one entry because it has the word "tumor" in it:
> Radio astronomers developed a method that is now used as a non-invasive way to detect tumours. By combining this with other traditional methods, there is a true-positive detection rate of 96% in breast cancer patients (Barret et al., 1978).
This article also seems to contain a decent analysis: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/1635/chapter/14#313
Disclaimer: I only skimmed the articles.
Gravity waves are a prediction of relativity. LIGO was built to confirm they exist. It took a long time to build LIGO and a long time to make it work. But eventually it did work in 2016 and sure enough gravity waves exist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
Black holes are a prediction of relativity. But black holes weren't imaged until 2019:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2319/first-image-of-a...
The predictive power, the depth of the results, and the work it takes to confirm the predictions of relativity is all a testament to Einstein's genius.
If anything, Einstein is underrated.
As I understand, a motivation for Stephen Wolfram developing the Wolfram language was to develop ideas he has that the universe is inherently computational on a fundamental scale. I read an article recently where he had linked up the Wolfram language with ChatGPT, producing more correct answers and less bullshit. It looked quite impressive. (I respect that it's important to subtract a Wolfram ego factor from articles he writes before you can really appreciate how impressive his results are)
I don't think we would have make the gps satellite constellation if we didn't think it would work in the first place though, at which point we wouldn't have gotten there.
Sat-to-sat laser communication, as Starlink envisions, requires tight understanding of the Earth’s general relativistic properties as well as the satellites’ special relativity. If the choice were Starlink or no more astrophysics, the answer would be clear to the point of justifying military intervention by third parties. It’s not. It’s Starlink or particular kinds of astrophysical observation from the ground. That’s a more careful balance, and one that can be mitigated by e.g. increasing funding for those experiments on space-based platforms.
It is when physicists are talking about it. Physicists often use the word technology to refer to a mathematical means by which something can be calculated, not a machine or a device.