Can we just do things the conservative way and lay more wire?
And where that doesn't help, use packet radio links?
And where that doesn't help, use mesh networks?
Why do they have to do it all the ugly and pretentious way?
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
384 points (96.6% liked)
Astronomy
3876 readers
395 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But people are still shilling for starlink. I was always downvoted for mentioning the kessler syndrome or light pollution. All for progress, I guess we really need that fast internet in the middle of the atlantic.
People down voting you for bringing up Kessler syndrome were correct to do so. It's a complete non-issue for starlink-sized objects at that altitude.
Light pollution is a more reasonable objection, and the effects on the upper atmosphere of all those satellites burning up would be as well, but not Kessler syndrome
Time for astronomy to destroy Elon Musk
Looking forward to when Europe and China also launch their own satellite internet constellations
Loved that manga, I should re-read it and try watching the show again.
Obviously this is a problem for radio astronomers. I keep hoping we’ll build the proposed Lunar Crater Telescope so we can have a truly silent view of the universe.
And then let people move there to get away from Elon.
And consequently create radio chatter and disturb the Lunar Crater Telescope :(
I’ll be very quiet. Promise.
I WONT
How are you going to shit post on the internet with no wifi, then? 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz are loud af
Ethernet cable.
Where is that ethernet cable getting internet from on the moon without there being a loud as fuck antenna?
The ether.
So then you won't be able to be quiet due to the screaming and moans coming from the cacaphony of lost souls within the Warp
Eh, just treat it as ASMR.
802.3
Ethernet protocol can't reach the earth from the moon without there being a loud af antenna on either side
Fiber line to the bright side of the moon; transceiver there.
For multi-mode (full duplex) you would still need a power amp repeater every 500 meters, which requires a lot of power and create noise. You can't be quiet with noise.
Even if you make them sub-surface, or otherwise shield them from the FOV of the antenna?
Yes, because there's no way to transmit power or data anywhere without being loud af in any signal spectrum. It's physically impossible.
Even with fiber, you need a laser to beam the signal, and a powerful amp on the moon to recieve the signal and boost it with fuck ton of high power repeaters to the other side of the moon which is also loud af
Be that as it may, it’d be minimal compared to the interference that terrestrial radio observatories have to deal with.
I guess I’m just saying that I don’t understand why you’re being so negative about the concept when it’s clearly going to be orders of magnitude better than existing antennae.
True. When can we visit said hypothetical moon base?
Wanna go next Tuesday? I’m pretty sure I’m free then.
And how would they get there?
Lunar space elevator obviously.
Nah. Move him there, alone, forever.
I would also consider a proposal to install elon musk at that location.
Elon is a nazi but this was always bound to happen as we expand our presence in space.
Imagine the radio signature of any of the hundreds of orbital megastructures in sci fi.
this was always bound to happen as we expand our presence in space.
Yes and no
from a different article:
Radiation associated with Starlink satellites was detected at observing frequencies between 110 and 188 MHz, which is well below the 10.7- 12.7 GHz radio frequencies used for the downlink communication signals.
(The original article said 5M radiation, which should be around 60MHz.)
So Starlink is emitting RF in spectrum where they shouldn't, which is avoidable, but takes effort.
My guess, and I could be wrong, is that this could be related to something other than the radio(s), such as switching power supplies finding opportunistic structures from which to radiate.
Starlink seems like a genuinely interesting and useful technology, in some ways.
But it also seems like it might not be worth having.
I'm thinking they might need to be deorbited, but I'm not confident in that yet. It sounds like it might be fixable in a new generation of Internet constellation satellites.
Idk how long the issue should be tolerated to wait for that, though. And while Starlink has a good amount of customers this kind of Internet is genuinely useful for, it's still not a lot compared to all the other internet services.
Maybe Starlink deorbiting should come along with an expansion of the traditional communications network. But maybe it would be extremely expensive to reach Starlink's customers with towers or cables.
China is putting up their own equivalent system. Terrestrial radio telescopes are fucked.
Time for a moon base.
Any chance the Starlink satellites could be built to double as a sort of large-array telescope themselves, to compensate for the ground-based interference?
What's more likely to happen is Starship’s will be launched where the entire ship becomes the telescope, and then we'll have arrays of these much further away.
Not sure if it's the same for radio, but for optical that means we can get a 9 meter mirror up there without any expensive folding mechanism, and who knows how big if we fold them as the fairing is not only wider but also longer.
Cost would go from billions to hundreds of millions or less. James Webb cost 10b.
The James Webb folding mirror is 6.5m and was folded into a 4.5m fairing...
I have not heard a car for a few hours. Not even the rumble of traffic in the distance and I can see the night sky without light pollution. It is a very privileged experience in some ways and while it has its advantages we are measurably disadvantaged in most human development metrics: health, education, income etc compared to people living in urban areas of our own country. The disadvantage is real and pops up everywhere from cancer survivability to suicide rates. Equitable internet access is more important than many people appreciate. If we can improve services to everyone AND protect radio astronomy that is a worthy goal.
Fiber is dirty cheap, just saying. If you consider externalities, much cheaper than starlink. You just want us to subsidise your lifestyle.
How does fiber being cheap help them if no ISP is willing to dig miles and miles of trenches to lay it and connect to their home? I live in the middle of suburbia and don't have access to fiber.
Your comment about subsidizing their lifestyle doesn't really make sense. What are you subsidizing exactly? This tech is also useful in poorer countries that don't have the infrastructure at all.
Maybe they are farmers? Apparently they have to live quote remote.
I have family that use it as there is nothing else available
Edit: fiber is cheap, but the land and labour required is not.