Hacker News Reader

Comment by comfypotato | Hacker News Reader

These scientists need to get over it and work around it.

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.

View on HN

>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

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but SpaceX did have to get approval. You can't just fire off rockets with payloads willy nilly.

They got approval to pollute the LEO of planet Earth? Who could you possibly go to for approval for that?

Bluntly, the people with the power to stop you from doing so. For SpaceX, that means the US government via the FCC.

Yes, granted by the FCC.

The FCC is the LEO authority for the whole planet?

They're the authority for anything that launches from the US and that transmits on RF. If Starlink interferes with US science the FCC definitely takes that into consideration.

Then let that stay over the US. I'm sick of seeing my sky polluted with moving dots.

"But it's not much" you'll say. Yeah, wait another 10-20 years, with all the additional shit launched into space.

> I'm sick of seeing my sky polluted with moving dots

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.

Sure. Do you mean we should stop caring?

There is no LEO authority over the entire world. In fact, and this may shock you, there are hardly any global authorities. Except for the sanctions and war China, for example, could decide to poison all oceans.

> is no LEO authority over the entire world

The closest thing is the Outer Space Treaty, which assigns responsibility to governments [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Actually it would be the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space usually referred to as COPUOS. (I usually pronounce it cope-you-us because it’s slightly easier than cope-you-os for me)

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...

Your mention of satellite value gives me a thought: If spacex had to pay for the launch of 1 telescope for every 20 batches of starlink, how much use would that have compared to their interference?

> 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".

I think it's worth reading the article mate, it's talking about how they observed that satellite emissions and the effect it could have on their research and the things they do.

> 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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com