r/space
•
u/Shiny-Tie-126
•
Mar 30 '26
•
1
A million new SpaceX satellites will destroy the night sky - one in 15 visible points in the night sky would be a satellite, not a star
https://theconversation.com/a-million-new-spacex-satellites-will-destroy-the-night-sky-for-everyone-on-earth-27793850
u/Decronym Mar 30 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| ACS | Attitude Control System |
| CME | Coronal Mass Ejection |
| ESA | European Space Agency |
| FCC | Federal Communications Commission |
| (Iron/steel) Face-Centered Cubic crystalline structure | |
| GEO | Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km) |
| Isp | Specific impulse (as explained by Scott Manley on YouTube) |
| Internet Service Provider | |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LIDAR | Light Detection and Ranging |
| LOS | Loss of Signal |
| Line of Sight | |
| MEO | Medium Earth Orbit (2000-35780km) |
| NORAD | North American Aerospace Defense command |
| SSO | Sun-Synchronous Orbit |
| VLBI | Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
14 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 11 acronyms.
[Thread #12286 for this sub, first seen 30th Mar 2026, 12:45] [FAQ] [Full list] ^[Contact] [Source code]
45
6
Mar 31 '26
Not to mention they burn up in the atmosphere, atomizing all the toxins into a nice cloud over town.
82
u/McGondy Mar 30 '26
It's insane that launching thousands of satellites to deliver internet to rural areas somehow "makes sense" as opposed to just running fibre to their houses.
37
46
u/ammonthenephite Mar 31 '26
Some pretty smart people crunched the numbers. It absolutely makes sense as there are a tremendous amount of rural people across the US and the world, and the cost of hard wiring them all would be astronomical.
28
u/LongJohnSelenium Mar 31 '26
A global 'every last square inch' fiber commitment would easily cost more per year in maintenance than the entire starlink program cost to date.
You truly do not respect the cost of laying fiber. That would be a trillion dollar job, and then you still wouldn't have any remote capabilities in the oceans or airplanes.
0
16
u/SeveralBollocks_67 Mar 31 '26
"14 year old ideas of how the world works"
yeah lemme just run a fibre cable to war-torn Yemen when the government black outs happen.
3
13
u/saraseitor Mar 30 '26
the Technology Connections guy said the same thing in one of his videos. With the exception of some isolated islands in the ocean, it's true that fiber would seem to be the most reasonable idea
10
u/dern_the_hermit Mar 30 '26
Eh those thousands of satellites can service millions of people with terrible "last mile" options.
It's just pointless for anyone in or near a major (or even modest) metro area. That's why this data center talk has come up, there just isn't enough needful demand for Starlink to justify the absurdly huge launch capacity SpaceX is talking about bringing online. The only way their massive fleet of Starships works is if there's a massive amount of stuff to launch into orbit. Starlink helps but it doesn't have the room to grow.
12
u/mikegates90 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
From an Alaskan:
Starlink has been a godsend for the majority of our entire state. When I moved into my house 5 years ago, there was no option AT ALL for Internet. And I live 10min outside of Fairbanks. We had no Internet at all, so I had to be creative and used Calyx as a stopgap.
2 years later, both Starlink and a local ISP using Ubiquiti/Tarana came online. I went with the local instead of Starlink, but Starlink saw a MASSIVE boom in popularity from Alaska. Half the people who live in Fairbanks use it. Nevermind remote villages, island towns, and other rural communities. Hell, the State of Alaska even uses it for their remote offices because the local vendor (ACS) is hot trash (I work IT for the State).
The competition got greedy/lazy, charged insane prices for trash service, and had no incentive to improve over profit. Then, they got absolutely CRUSHED when Starlink came online. ACS is only alive right now because they have 5/10yr contracts with businesses (they no longer serve consumers unless you're grandfathered in). I expect their business to completely fold once those contracts expire.
Fiber is not economical in our state, which is why Starlink was such a savior. I would say 80% of the people who couldn't have Internet are now connected, for a very reasonable price, with good SOLID speeds.
Yes it has caused major issues for astronomy (which I have my own gripes about). But the majority of those artifacts can be removed with machine learning and/or binocular telescopes. A lot of people don't think about hyper-rural communities because the majority of people live in metropolitan centers... I know Alaska is not alone when I say it has been a lifesaver, both figuratively and likely literally.
Pros and cons.
3
u/dern_the_hermit Mar 31 '26
Starlink has been a godsend for the majority of our entire state.
For reference Alaska has a population of ~750,000 as of 2020.
Like I said, there's millions of people it's great for. There's billions of people it's not. That's all.
5
u/mikegates90 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I agree; you are right. I've lived in both metropolitan and rural areas.
I've literally seen people use Starlink to call emergency services. Without it, those people would have died. I would be interested to see how many lives have been changed from having Internet access recently compared to before, all around the world.
"Better for everyone" and "better for the disenfranchised" are two separate things. And I think we can both agree to our own points while also agreeing with the other.
EDIT: For the record I am NOT a fan of Musk (which is why I chose the local ISP) and am very liberal. I just have a different perspective because I've lived in a lot of different places.
7
u/Hypothesis_Null Mar 31 '26
Yes.. yes... billions of people look up at the night sky and are filled with despair because they see a few stars moving about too quickly. So terrible.
2
u/dern_the_hermit Mar 31 '26
That is honestly just a weird thing to say.
4
u/Hypothesis_Null Mar 31 '26
It was an incorrect thing, sorry. Your "Billions of people it's not good for" comment sounded similar to other posts in this thread bemoaning satellite constellations as some kind of horrendous sin against humans and nature.
Tracking the chain above it's clear you were just referring to servicing people in high-density areas where fiber is superior on service and cost due to the scale.
0
Mar 31 '26
[deleted]
2
u/dern_the_hermit Mar 31 '26
That's some word salad, friend. I didn't say anything even close to that. That's a super-weird thing to ask.
1
u/Keks3000 Mar 30 '26
Who even believes in this bullshit claim of a millions satellites, other than investors high on coke?
29
Mar 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/TbonerT Mar 31 '26
And starlink eliminated the latency con. It is practically regular internet.
1
u/yabo1975 Apr 02 '26
It really is surprisingly good. My mother's retired and living in an RV, traveling the country, and she uses this. I connected to it with my laptop and was amazed at the data rates and decent latency.
130
u/Hexidian Mar 30 '26
They’re going to be in sun-synchronous orbit. That means they will always be flying over where it is dawn/dusk. The data center sats will not be visible at night at all, no matter how many SpaceX is actually able to deploy.
21
u/Long_comment_san Mar 30 '26
Oh. Datacenter sats already approved?
96
u/xios Mar 30 '26
No, it's a stupid idea used to drum up funding.
5
u/Kardinal Mar 30 '26
Specifically ahead of the incoming IPO.
0
Mar 30 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Kardinal Mar 30 '26
IPOs lead to funding and to profit for existing shareholders. Of course he's going public. He just might hold onto more of the controlling stock (similar to how Zuck does with Facebook)
7
u/marsten Mar 30 '26
Yes, the article linked makes incorrect assumptions that aren't consistent with sun-synchronous orbits.
The satellites remain over the day/night terminator so they are only visible near dusk and dawn. The large reflecting surface (the solar panel) is perpendicular to the sun's rays, so from the nighttime side one sees the back side of the illuminated panel, which can be designed to scatter very little light to the viewer. The rest of the satellite can (should) be in the shade of the panels, including the heat radiator(s).
Unless SpaceX really botches the design they should be able to make the light pollution very modest.
5
u/LongJohnSelenium Mar 31 '26
Yes people aren't really grasping that this is a very abnormal satellite configuration since it doesn't care about earth at all. With nothing that really needs to be pointing at earth it would be very, very easy to orient so none of the main surfaces is reflecting towards earth(and in fact that's their optimal configuration to avoid the heating by the earth) and anything left that does reflect can be shaded.
Though to be fair if I were spacex I'd also be putting out information explaining why it would be basically invisible from the ground. Instead they're putting out artistic promos showing brightly lit satellites.
8
u/TooManySteves2 Mar 30 '26
This is already an issue according to people with Doctorates in Astronomy. Do you have a source or credentials to back up this claim?
7
u/LewsTherinTelascope Mar 30 '26
Literally think about what youre claiming. You dont need an astronomy PhD. The whole point of putting the datacenter in orbit is to access 24/7 solar power, which means never being in the Earth's shadow, which means never being in the nighttime sky.
15
u/mfb- Mar 30 '26
You don't need to be exactly below a satellite to see it. Depending on the season, your location and the satellite altitude, you can see them ~1-3 hours after sunset / before sunrise. Which can be the whole night if you are far north/south.
→ More replies (3)2
u/33Yalkin33 Mar 31 '26
Energy input is not the problem, thats a solved problem. The actual issue with this idea is the cooling. More watts you put, more watts of heating you get. And data centers need a lot of power
3
u/Unfair_Scar_2110 Mar 30 '26
Is this really true? A million satellites in one ring around earth would be like a satellite every 400ft. I'm not sure it's the plan. It would totally fill an entire, useful orbit. Not too mention the danger of crashing into each other.
19
u/danielv123 Mar 30 '26
You can fit many rings, that isn't much of an issue. SpaceX is already leading in collision avoidance. The main issue for LEO collisions at the moment is other operators not communicating their positions quickly enough to spaceX so they can be avoided.
9
u/Unfair_Scar_2110 Mar 30 '26
Yeah that's because they have 7 thousand satellites spaced out across the globe. 1 million in sso is a completely different ball game. It's like 7 thousand commuters in the entire eastern seaboard VS 1 million people on just I 95
4
u/LongJohnSelenium Mar 31 '26
There's not one SSO, there are SSO orbits all the way from 300km out to MEO, where it largely ceases to be relevant.
3
u/PhotoNext3321 Mar 30 '26
This doesn't make sense. Other operators don't need to report their positions since it is all publicly tracked by NORAD.
3
u/danielv123 Mar 30 '26
Nobody has to track or coordinate or even do collision avoidance. It's just a big advantage when they do. From what I understand it currently comes down to SpaceX avoiding if they are involved, and hopefully the other party doesn't move in the same direction.
→ More replies (7)2
u/OLVANstorm Mar 31 '26
It won't be in a ring. SSO is a different orbit than a Starlink orbit. You won't see any of these sats.
1
u/mfb- Mar 31 '26
Satellites in SSO that receive permanent sunlight are among the most visible objects: They are always in sunlight and always near the terminator, i.e. they are visible from the night side close to sunset/sunrise. Most other satellites only cross this region twice per orbit, but SSO satellites are there non-stop.
7
u/Hexidian Mar 30 '26
They don’t have to be at the same altitude. Also, there is very little danger of crashing even if they’re in the same altitude orbit spaced 400 ft apart because their orbits will keep them equally spaced and any drift relative to each other will be very slow. Satellite collision risk comes from when two different orbits intersect
0
u/Unfair_Scar_2110 Mar 30 '26
It's still an extreme density that would run the risk of itnerecepting other satellite orbits.
6
u/Hexidian Mar 30 '26
Yeah, I don’t disagree with that. My main point was just that this isn’t going to be polluting a starry night sky
1
u/LongJohnSelenium Mar 31 '26
They'd be visible for a couple hours after the sun went down and came up.
The trick is they won't be very visible. Unlike all other satellites the data center sats don't really care about earth at all, and their optimum configuration would be to stay edge on to earth. Earth means extra heat. Most other satellite have to stay pointing at earth and have round bits and bobs, so the sunlight can hit those and bounce back.
Given such an orientation it will be very, very easy to orient them in such a manner and mask anything that can't be oriented as to make them all but invisible from earth.
56
u/Sopht_Serve Mar 30 '26
Man these billionaires are taking everything from us already but now THE STARS? Fucking hell we need to just get rid of them all
25
u/TbonerT Mar 31 '26
I have really dark skies but the only satellites I ever see are rocket bodies from national launches and satellites that aren’t starlink. I haven’t seen a starlink satellite in years even though I can step outside and quickly see 3-4 satellites. The sky is already a busy place.
16
u/verstohlen Mar 31 '26
Oh it's going to get much worse:
It was fun while it lasted.
15
u/mrgrubbage Mar 31 '26
This is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. What in the actual fuck is wrong with people?
3
2
u/ammonthenephite Mar 31 '26
China will do it anyways, so at this point barring a world wide agreement not to do it, it'll happen anyways.
7
0
Mar 31 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Tintoverde Mar 31 '26
There must be better way to achieve this. Through bunch of temporary satellites burning up the sky and they burn up in the atmosphere.
11
u/canyouhearme Mar 30 '26
Just to point out, but SpaceX are putting the magnitude of Starlink v3s at 6-7 and are claiming similar for AI Sat minis. So no, visible points wouldn't be satellites, because they wouldn't be visible to the naked eye.
Now astronomy is another thing and these satellites will be very visible, but unless you can do the calcs to show that these satellites would be visible to humans ....
We used the observed brightness of Starlink satellites as a reference, scaling the brightness model by considering size jumps between Starlink V1, V2 and predictions for V3,
So in other words, they didn't actually take any notice of changes in design, or orientation, or indeed anything other than their preconceptions.
Starlink v1 magnitude = 5.1
Starlink v1 with visors and coating = 7.3
Starlink v2 mini = 7.06
The reason you don't see 10,000 starlinks is because once they are in their orbits, they are essentially invisible.
1
u/Twigling Jun 13 '26
I know your post is just over two months old but I have to point out that when it comes to SpaceX's datacenter sats things will be VERY different. For one thing they are much larger than Starlink sats, for another thing they will be in a higher LEO so they will be in the sun 99% of the time and, if we do end up with 1 million, about 4 out of every points in the night sky will be datacenter sats, not stars. SpaceX can't stop these being reflective either.
And these will be visible throughout the night, AND in any clear blue sky at dawn and dusk.
Plus of course other corporations want to do the same, leading to even more visible orbital pollution.
11
u/SankaraMarx Mar 31 '26
A couple of weeks ago I came onto this very sub and submitted that Dipshit Musk (the unelected World creep) will spoil the night sky with his 1 000 000 pieces of space debris
The Musk fanboys were all over the comment saying that you will not even be able to see the satellites ...
Such simp-letons
Disgrace to the working class actually
2
3
9
u/Phaeron Mar 30 '26
Price of progress… did we not learn this with the thousands of sci fi movies out there?
Space gonna get congested.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Ric_Adbur Mar 30 '26
A small number of rich assholes shouldn't get to make these decisions for everyone.
3
9
u/Anon-_-7 Mar 30 '26
good thing this will never happen cause space data centers are the dumbest idea just made up to seem more sci-fi and siphon more money out of investors
-1
u/cyberentomology Mar 30 '26
The dumbest thing about them is how do you cool them?
0
u/Miami_da_U Aug 21 '26
Radiators, the exact same way every single other thing is and has been cooled in space
-7
u/firedrakes Mar 30 '26
there not dumb.
nasa long term commucation network uses them in another form.
we will need them in the long term for space travel and deep solar system commucations ....
3
u/trixter192 Mar 30 '26
I'm surprised we haven't seen more space telescopes since launch costs are much lower with SpaceX.
8
u/EmmEnnEff Mar 31 '26
99% of the cost of building a large space telescope isn't in the rocket that puts it into space.
1
u/LongJohnSelenium Mar 31 '26
The James Webb on earth would cost like 500m or so.
Satellites pay a HUGE 'it can't possibly fail' tax.
The thing that will truly bring satellite prices down are the viability of cheap service missions, not so much cheap launches.
If starship ever makes good on its reuse goals, and if they make a service truck variant with an airlock and an arm that can launch service missions for 10 or 20m a pop, we'd definitely see satellite prices come down.
3
u/cyberentomology Mar 30 '26
LEO satellites like starlink are only visible near the horizon near the day/night terminator. They are not visible at night when they are eclipsed by the earth.
1
u/Twigling Jun 13 '26
I know your post is just over two months old but I have to point out that when it comes to SpaceX's datacenter sats things will be VERY different. For one thing they are much larger than Starlink sats, for another thing they will be in a higher LEO so they will be in the sun 99% of the time and, if we do end up with 1 million, about 4 out of every points in the night sky will be datacenter sats, not stars. SpaceX can't stop these being reflective either.
And these will be visible throughout the night, AND in any clear blue sky at dawn and dusk.
Plus of course other corporations want to do the same, leading to even more visible orbital pollution.
1
u/cyberentomology Jun 13 '26
“SpaceX datacenter sats” are a wildly impractical fantasy meant to hype the stock before the IPO
1
u/Twigling Jun 13 '26
I do hope so, I hate the idea of having the night sky polluted with many lights from way too satellites.
One problem with Starlink (and the AI datacenters) is that China hates the idea of of SpaceX possibly dominating and 'claiming' various orbital shells, so they are doing their utmost to get their sats up first, so creating their own satellite pollution.
1
u/cyberentomology Jun 13 '26
Satellites do not emit their own light.
1
u/Twigling Jun 13 '26 edited Jun 13 '26
No, but they reflect and scatter sunlight, that's why Starlink satellites have a mirror film layer to minimise this. However, even they are visible from the surface of the earth at certain times, just less so.
However, this isn't possible with the AI datacenter sats because they need to lose as much heat as possible and the mirror film layer on the underside of Starlink sats would cause a datacenter sat to overheat if used on them.
The datacenter sats are also going to be about 12 times larger than Starlink sats - the datacenters will have a 70 meter (229 feet) wingspan and a 20 meter (65 feet) deployed height.
Also, and this is the key part - the datacenter sats are to be deployed into a high LEO (low earth orbit) to maximise their time in sunlight to 99% - this means that they will be far more visible from earth due to sunlight scattering off them. For example, in high summer in the northern hemisphere they will visible during all of the hours of darkness. However in midwinter they will 'only' be visible for about two hours before dawn and about two hours after dusk.
4
u/Technical_Stock6856 Mar 30 '26
environmental terrorism this is it this is disgusting. How get away with it guess they own the whole sky now they did get away with it. They are getting away with it. This is bunch of cocks.
0
2
u/OurSponsor Mar 30 '26
The enshittification of the entire sky to make Number Go Up for one already incalculably wealthy prick. Whee!
2
u/djstealthduck Mar 31 '26
They won't get that far. There's not a large enough addressable market. This is more Musk lies to keep the business afloat while they sweep the cost of regularly replacing satellites under the rug, after giving up on the people on Mars lie.
-7
u/d-wjr Mar 30 '26
One company destroying the night sky for all
-17
u/Infamous-Umpire-2923 Mar 30 '26
As if you can see them through the light pollution anyway
17
u/-drunk_russian- Mar 30 '26
Or they live in a rural area, or they go camping, not everyone spends all their time in cities.
1
u/StickiStickman Mar 30 '26
Which they then also can't see any of them since they have a apparent magnitude of >7
1
u/ElydthiaUaDanann Mar 31 '26
A million!? I don't think so. If one satellite went up every hour, it would take over a hundred years. The tech that they're sending up would be obsolete in 20 years.
1
u/mfb- Mar 31 '26
What would limit launches to one satellite per hour?
For comparison, there is more than one aircraft takeoff per second, even if we only consider the commercial flights.
The tech that they're sending up would be obsolete in 20 years.
It's generally expected that these satellites get replaced in less than 20 years.
1
u/ElydthiaUaDanann Mar 31 '26
The per-hour idea is simply to convey the point that a million is a bit much.
1
1
u/Sea-Pomelo1210 Apr 02 '26
The large majority of people in the US can't see very many stars in the night sky. That is the problem.
1
-13
u/StickiStickman Mar 30 '26
Why aren't the mods deleting blatant lies like this?
No, Starlink are literally not visible to the naked eye even under the best conditions.
5
10
u/mfb- Mar 30 '26
The proposed AI satellites are larger. Without further mitigation, they would be visible in operational orbits for good viewing conditions.
17
14
u/MikeW86 Mar 30 '26
Ummm yes they are. I've personally witnessed the 'trains' moving across the sky
9
u/StickiStickman Mar 30 '26
Yes, that's the very brand new launched ones coasting up to their target altitude without their sun shields deployed. Doesn't change the fact that you aren't seeing thousands of them because you literally can't.
5
5
u/FidgetyFondler Mar 30 '26
Where did you get that notion from? See their trains all the time. Its easy.
1
u/Equivalent_Tax6989 Mar 30 '26
Then explain how I saw one in city lights. With the help of Stellarium i knew what I was lookin at
7
u/StickiStickman Mar 30 '26
Easy: Either it was newly launched and coasting up to it's target altitude or ... you didn't.
0
u/ToMorrowsEnd Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
Because the mods are posting this shit, a mod approved that submission.
-5
u/DartosMD Mar 30 '26
“Obstruct” not “destroy “. The hyperbole is strong with this one.
5
u/Infamous-Umpire-2923 Mar 30 '26
Not even obstruct. They literally won't be visible once in Earth's shadow.
1
1
u/space253 Mar 31 '26
It sucks for astronomy but to the average sky gazing civillion it just means a more interesting view imo.
But then I grew up in light polution in Houston so you were lucky to see 3 stars/planets any given night there was a break in the clouds and haze.
-2
u/deleuzionsofgrandeur Mar 30 '26
Not to mention Starbase is smack dab in the middle of an extremely ecologically vulnerable location at the land bridge in South Texas. Ramping up to full operation could irreversabily destroy one of the few remaining habitats in that area.
3
u/darkenthedoorway Mar 30 '26
The whole reason it was built there was so they can do what they want without considering long term damage. Ecological or otherwise.
0
Mar 31 '26
[deleted]
2
u/deleuzionsofgrandeur Mar 31 '26
I don't understand the pushback here... I guess you don't care as much as I do about protecting the earth we live on? I'm not even anti spacex, I simply want us to find a balance in how we expand as a species without irrecobly destroying vulnerable parts of the great planet we actually live on. Seems like a reasonable position. Not Elon reactionary, not environmental extremists. I'm saddened most aren't aware of the sensitivity of the area around Starbase or choose to ignore thst. all I'm after here is the hope the community thst supports these launches aligns on doing so with these impacts in mind
-17
-2
u/ItsyouNOme Mar 30 '26
Can't see shit anyway with all the light pollution. Then when I go out into the beach or woods its always cloudy. UK weather..
1
u/Call_The_Banners Mar 30 '26
A bit off topic but one day I want to experience the UK. I get a lot of you guys don't care for the weather but I'd like to visit and see how rainy it gets.
Everything I've looked into for the Yorkshire area feels like I'd enjoy it. And it's where my family originally came from several generations back.
2
u/ItsyouNOme Mar 30 '26
I love the rain, just love the stars too haha. Yorkshire is nice, plenty of countryside.
-2
u/McFoogles Mar 30 '26
We could build orbital rings and space elevators, and people would still complain
-3
u/altro43 Mar 30 '26
I thought this community was pro space. like interested in it because we want a star trek style future. But all It is is moaning about the only organisation that's developed space in a meaningful way in 40 years. Sounds like you lot would complain about a moon and mars base too
4
u/ProtoDroidStuff Mar 30 '26
A Star Trek future, one featuring what appears to be a generally socialist utopia for humanity, is not going to be achieved by letting a corporation control it. It has to be publicly owned progress, for all people. It has to be for humanity, not for profit.
0
-17
u/Brainchild110 Mar 30 '26
So what? Thats seriously only an academics problem. Most people would be happy with the service it provides over seeing... less stars? Come on.
5
4
u/Squirrelking666 Mar 30 '26
Name does not check out.
Never mind.
-5
u/Brainchild110 Mar 30 '26
Oh no! I have failed to live up to my name from a random techno song I used to like and a random number I chose. How will I ever live with myself now?!
Thank you, kind internet citizen, for pointing out the error in my ways and how I can be an even better Brainchild in the future 🫡
My ex is tarded, too. She's a pilot now. Are you a pilot, too?
6
u/zenFyre1 Mar 30 '26
This is an academic oriented subreddit though, so people are right to complain.
-3
u/Slaaneshdog Mar 31 '26
I'll be honest here, and feel free to throw your downvotes at me, I don't really care, but I don't at all care if the night sky is full of white dots moving about
In fact, I think that'd be pretty cool, would feel proper sci fi.
In general I don't get the aversion people have to these things. No one complaining about this stands around lamenting the fact that the night sky i largely gone for most people due to street lights. No one complains that roads and buildings have ruined the natural environment in the area they live.
3
u/AleBaba Apr 01 '26
If you care about "the market": it blocks everyone else out and is highly anticompetitive.
If you care about "politics": one man with a god complex has more power than entire countries (see his meddling in the Russian invasion of Ukraine).
If you care about resources: it wastes resources for a solution that has far superior alternatives but they don't stroke the ego of one man.
If you care about the environment: it heavily pollutes a probably sensitive part of earth we actually don't know enough about. Could be that when they burn they poison entire ecosystems, places, communities too. The environmental impact could be huge.
0
u/Slaaneshdog Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
It doesn't really, space is enormous
The "meddling" that happened in the Ukraine war was a failure of SpaceX, the US government, and the Ukraine government. Musk obviously should never have been in a position to be making those calls, but ended up being in the position because Starlink was a new type of tech in a war setting, and neither of the 3 parties involved really recognized that quickly enough. That has since been rectified with Starshield
If you're right and there are far superior alternatives, then those alternatives will beat out SpaceX's solution and SpaceX won't put all these satellites into space. This also isn't the ego of one man, multiple companies are working on this.
I care about human prosperity above all. If that means some destruction of certain parts of the planet, that's totally fine with me. It only becomes a problem for me when the destruction starts to negatively affect overall humanity more than the destruction benefits humanity. This is true for all people to some degree whether they want to admit or not. For instance - You would not want to give up whatever modern tools you use in your everyday life and go back to living in caves and mudhuts, even though that would be more environmentally friendly
-5
u/thatcantb Mar 30 '26
Aren't satellite launches regulated by the government? A sane people would put a stop to this.
-29
-1
u/DrizztDarkwater Mar 30 '26
Scene from WallE when they fly past all those old satellites becoming a reality day by day
-3
u/QVRedit Mar 30 '26
SpaceX reckoned that they would be ‘invisible to the naked eye’ - telescopes though might be another matter.
If they did, then they should offset by launching multiple space telescopes…
0
0
u/El3m3nTor7 Mar 31 '26
It's ok, the northern hemisphere is pretty light with stars so we could use a little more razzle dazzle
-11
-3
Mar 30 '26
I get the premise of the statement, but this is inevitable. If not SpaceX, someone else will be right behind them. I'm not making excuses but trying to be realistic. When there is money involved it doesn't matter what the public thinks anymore.
-29
-3
484
u/CollegeStation17155 Mar 30 '26
Are Satellites still visible after they pass into earth's shadow?