/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10690506
>global internet access to billions of people in remote areas.
>for no reason at all

>>10690506

>SOMEONE SAID ELON BAD

If you care about Elon, Astronomy, or third worlders you're a faggot and you should kys

>>10690572
Projecting much?

>>10690543
pretty much this

The same goes with 5g. Like... Why? What is the point?

>>10690572
I don't think /sci/ is for you, buddy

>>10690572
working on it

>>10690506
funding for a Mars colony is much more important than stargazing

>>10690851
Prove it.

>>10690506
fuck off with your facebook-tier anti-science drivel

>>10690917
The only anti-science one here is Elon Musk, and his fanboys.

>>10690506
So build a telescope outside of the satellite clutter.

>>10690506
Just put your telescopes into a higher orbit you stupid passive aggressive nigger.

launch cost are cheaper than ever and still lowering. In a few decades you might be able to do your stargazing on the moon.

>>10690543
I don't know about you but I don't really want to give billions of people in africa access to 4chan.

>>10690506
JWST is gonna be beyond the range of most satellites isn't it?

>>10690943
Did you even read the article..? It's not only for cutting edge scientific research, but for anyone on the planet to look up and gaze at the stars without having a grid of satellites ruining the view. The satellites also produce radiowaves which interfere with observations which can't realistically be done from outside the cluster.

If starlink were fully active, today, would the black hole picture even be possible to do?

>>10690977
I'm down with that, once you go black there is no going back. Who knows, perhaps we even get an official 'dark theme'.

>>10690832
brain cancer

>>10690851
>funding for faggotry is more important than equal faggotry

>>10690991

>>10690557
>SOMEONE SAID ELON GOOD

>>10690982
>without having a grid of satellites ruining the view
If people actually fucking looked at the stars once in a while, you'd already notice the occasional "star" zooming through the sky if you looked at the right place incidentally.
All this will add is a few more moving stars. The idea that you can't see anything anymore because you can't look past these satellites is ludicrous. Especially since they move so fast, they'll probably cross your entire sky in 5 minutes.
This whole debate is fucking stupid and I get the feeling nobody actually complaining about it ever actually saw a proper night sky and is posting this from some light polluted inner city slum somewhere. Not to mention that they also have no concept of what this constellation in particular would look like (just a number of additional stars at the sky you could count on one hand).

Oh and then there's the thing that I personally find it fucking cool to see our own satellites and rocket stages and space stations in the sky and don't even know what these people are mad about in the first place.
Sure, if you are an astronomer, it'll probably be annoying having your life mildly inconvenienced by more satellites. As for everyone else, stop trying to appear smart by talking about non-issues.

>>10690980
JWST will be behind the moon.

>>10690543
Great so now we have people from african tribes and mexican slums shitposting on here AND a worse night sky

>>10691133
Fuck off Musk.

>>10691162
>>10690977
More likely they'll be shitposting on some facebook clone written in an african language

>>10691179
The normie Aftricans, sure.

>>10690506
>whilst

>>10691199
Can ESLs not post bits of randomly learned vocab pls? Thx.

>>10690832
The point is to get customers to burn through their data allowance without realising it.

>>10691233
I foresee a lot more unnecessary OS updates across all platforms then, you're onto something there. I've already had my data burned through a couple of times by having a Windoze machine connected to my 4G hotspot.

>>10690982
>black hole picture

There was no black hole picture. That isn't a real picture. It is just bullshit data compiled. There's no camera involved at all. The only reason people are raging is because they happen to see it on social media and SpaceX is a better punching bag. Nothing more. There's a metric shit ton of low earth orbit sats being shat out every single week all around the world.

>>10691318
how come people were REALLY mad about india shitting those nanosats, but now support musk building a big ass network with a shit ton of satelites?
oh right, I forgot, americans are the biggest hypocrites of all.

>>10690506
Can't they substract the effect with longer exposures? If it makes a streak like that it's because it's taking a long exposure picture in the first place no?

>>10691133
Fucking this. Ive used my telescope (6 inch Netownian reflector) to get through much of the Messier catalogue and can say this is basically a non issue. There are already thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth, and on a night where im observing for 3 to 4 hours I might see two or three. They are so insignificant, it doesnt affect anything. Theyre almost unnoticeable unless youre actually trying to spot them. Its a total non issue and the images of them appearing bright in the sky dont reflect the fact that in their final orbits they will be both higher and further apart.

Why the fuck do people who cant name a single star all of a sudden care about these tiny, nearly imperceptible points of light all of a sudden? Just shut the fuck up already.

>>10690982
>if starlink were fully active, today, would the black hole picture even be possible to do?
Yes, because the orbits are public and extremely consistent, it is extreme easy to remove from long exposure shots like those used for the black hole picture. So easy, that an algorithm can be used to handle it automatically. Infact, algorithms for just such a task already exist because guess what, we already have satellites that orbit the planet and we track them so precisely and accurately that we know exactly when and for how long they will show up.

As we keep putting more and more satellites in orbit, we will eventually double the number of "stars" visible in the sky for normal observers. It will look quite extraordinary to behold in the near future when we cross that point, but until then we will continue to improve and invest in both ground based astronomy, space based astronomy, and in earth orbiting satellite constellations and stations. Crying about any of those is retarded and a waste of time.

>>10691697
Nobody cared about India shitting out nanosats, they cared about India shitting thousands of tiny pieces of debris into orbit with their missile test.

>>10691729
>There are already thousands of satellites orbiting the Earth
elon&co will add thousands more. other companies, space agencies and shit will add many more, because if elon can, why not us?

>>10691871
you are right, the controversy was about the missile test. still, I wouldn't be surprised if this became an issue some years from now.

>>10691162
Kind of makes one appreciate the Australians and Euro faggots a little bit more by comparison.

>>10691729
I've done the same through my 8" Dob and never had a single sat obstruct an observation, even on nights just scanning through the spiral arm of the Milky Way with a 2" wide view eyepiece.

>>10691729
>Why the fuck do people who cant name a single star all of a sudden care about these tiny, nearly imperceptible points of light all of a sudden?
Because jealousy at someone doing the impossible and bloated sense of self that believes they can do it better.

>>10690506
No one ever said that real-life mecha animays wouldn't involve any conflict.

I work offshore on ships. If Elon can make global internet a thing that would be fucking awesome. It sucks having super shitty ten minutes to load an email internet out there.

>>10691318
>There was no black hole picture.
That's wrong, you have low understanding. The data was captured using a bunch of telescopes btw.

I don't really get why everyone is bitching about starlink. We already have tons of satellites orbiting the earth.

>>10692497
>I don't get why you're bitching about having a laser pointer shined in your eyes, lots of people have laser pointers!

>>10690543
BOTNET

>>10690543
I think he meant “for no reason at all I am sharing what this looks like” not “this satellite which serves no reason at all”

>>10690572
Based.

>Probably 2 or 3 of them can be noticed in 2 or 3 hours
>OMG THE SKY IS RUINED. HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT THE STARS FROM MY LIGHT-POLLUTED CITY NOW?
Why?

I honestly don't understand the issue. Is getting a photo of stars dying really of a bigger concern than providing everyone on the planet unlimited, uninterrupted access to vast amounts of knowledge and communication capability? Are ISP shills finally coming out of their sheds or are these actual people having an actual issue with a field of science that have zero practical impact on modern human society?

We've had satellites orbiting Earth for decades, why is it that Elon Musk's satellites cause so much butthurt amongst contrarians?

>>10692540
I don't care about Africans without internet though

>>10692540
>Is getting a photo of stars dying really of a bigger concern than providing everyone on the planet unlimited, uninterrupted access to vast amounts of knowledge and communication capability?
Sorry I thought we were talking about access to the internet, the porn distribution network. Who's using it for vast amounts of (mostly bullshit and/or paywalled) knowledge?

And yes, astronomy is important and yes this will fuck up a lot of stuff.

>>10692555
Scared that Chief Unga Bunga might be smarter than you so you want to stop him from stepping onto the global stage, anon?

>>10692573
I don't think you understand how the internet works anon.

>>10692567
What will this fuck up, that any other sattelite system we already have is not already fucking up?

>>10692577
There are more, they are closer, they are brighter, they move relative to the ground. This is not complicated, most satellites are dim and if they're geosynchronous they're far away and also always in the same place relative to the ground. Don't be retarded if you can help it anon.

>>10692583
What about the gps network that is also on a polar orbit. What about the numerous weather sattelites that are also on polar orbits?

>>10692587
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXypyrutq_M

>>10692592
Are you saying the starlink satellites are closer to earth than the aforementioned ones?

>>10692596
They are, gps= 20000km while starlink is at a height of 550km

>>10692596
>are you saying that they're further than about 500km away
Yes.

>>10692600
It's even low for telecoms satellites.

>>10692600
>>10692601
>>10692602
All right, then I can understand the big drama. I reckon they'll also be a nuisance in the radiospectrum. I don't thinj radio astronomer will be very happy

>>10692604
People using visible light astronomy also take long exposures and it's not straightforward to cut out something flying past. Remember there will be 12000 of these things in the end, and some will be randomly flaring.

I'm not even going to get into the Kessler syndrome issues, it's already getting pretty congested in LEO.

>>10690506
It sounds like a good reason to have more orbital telescopes

>>10692615
>don't worry guys, I may have taken a massive shit on the night sky but you can rent some telescopes from me if you want!
It's just a robber baron charging rents.

>>10692618
you are silly

>>10692615
Not all observations can be done from space.

>>10692640
do them from Mars then

>>10692640
what observations can't be done from space and are optical?

>>10692619
It's not silly in the slightest. Musk tried to do something similar with his tunnels bullshit.

>>10692647
If this was possible, it would solve the problem :D
>>10692650
None, I'm of course talking about radio-astronomy. They use giant dishes that can't just be sent into space. Although an interferometer made of satellites could also be possible. But that is still not the same.

>>10692690
satellites flying in your field of view doesn't affect radio astronomy in the way the OP implies

>>10692730
That is correct, but I can imagine that the point of building a giant radiodish as far away from any radiosource is kind of undermined if there is a constant high bandwidth signal being sent by these satellites. Althought I do admit that this is probably also the case with the othet satellites we have.

>>10692760
communications satellites don't blast radio noise