Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- No problem, Starlink will sell us sattelite telescopes to solve that. /s
- I just have to say: I _hate_ with a white-hot fury the growing usage of html-load and error-report dot com bullshit on these sites. I block those domains for gratuitous ad-serving, and sites just cycle a modal error now.
(I know, I could disable JavaScript everywhere and enable it on a site-by-site basis. Maybe that time has come.)
by spdustin - I’ve got JavaScript disabled and no websites work.by bix6
- Another example of billionaire wait trillionaire power capture. It’s really tough for democracy when one man has all that power. Hah Elon is lex luthor.by gigatexal
- That’s a mighty nice field of study you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it
- maybe Internet for people on earth matters more than astronomy
- Google "Ukraine war Starlink". Neolibs who hate Musk's companies unconditionally are going to go quiet real fucking fast, I bet.
- The two aren't mutually exclusive, as long as aluminum foil is within a trillionaire's budget.
- As if most people use the Internet for proper utility and not just creating and consuming outrage-bait and slop. Suddenly the cost-benefit of "internet for people on earth" seems a lot less genuine.
You need surprisingly little bandwidth to send and receive messages, make calls, and read the news.
by lukeify - I have such a love hate relationship with the tech. On one hand, I live on the edge of the mountains and can get away while on-call, set up my starlink and still be within SLAs if I got paged while out of service (weekend pages are fairly rare). On the other hand, I'm an amateur astronomer, for visual astro, it's not a huge deal, but I see how it could be for astrophotography (streaks) and obviously it's a problem for radio.by sh-run
- > maybe Internet for people on earth matters more than astronomy
Maybe Starlink can design proper filters and shielding so both Internet and astronomy can happen at the same time.
by throw0101a - Maybe but people already had plenty of internet before Starlink.
Everyone i know who is using starlink doesn't use starlink because htey need starlink for internet.
by Dlemlo - These are either incidental or unauthorized transmissions. Not the Ku band downlink to terminals.by cozzyd
- We had that before Starlink flooded the radio quiet zones with leakage.by defrost
- Once starship is running, spacex should launch a lunar crater telescope https://www.nasa.gov/general/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-lc... to permanently shut up this kind of grievances.by Palpatineli
- There is some evidence that little engineering effort has been put into mitigating this problem. I think if someone actually tried really hard we could make these birds a lot quieter.
> We compared the detected power flux densities of this UEMR to that emitted by the first generation v1.0 and v1.5 Starlink satellites. When correcting for the observed satellite distances, we find that the second-generation satellites emit UEMR that is up to a factor of 32 stronger compared to the first generation.
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2024/09/aa51856-24/aa5...
by bob1029 - There's probably a reason for that.
> Current ITU regulations ignore unintended satellite hardware leakage, leaving astronomers without legal protection.
Oh, what a coincidence.
by femto - > Algorithmic mitigation is being explored, but scientists describe it as “embryonic” — potentially demanding computing power that rivals the science processing itself.
It sounds like this would work? Just be more costly, at least in the short term.
> Engineering fixes are the real answer
What is the fix and tradeoff? The article doesn't seem to cover it at all.
by robryan - > The accidental static bleeding from onboard hardware, coupling through satellite structures and radiating across frequencies nobody authorized.
> The numbers tell the story bluntly:
I wouldn't waste too much compute trying to parse it, lots of LLM tells in the article. Pangram puts it at 100% AI.
by ahepp - While I pine for a dark sky, it makes sense that these operations should move in the same way century old optical telescopes in cities are no longer used for cutting edge science.
The far side of the moon seems like an increasingly viable option.
- Just wait until wireless networks on the moon ruin that too.by cozzyd
- You do realize that the far side of the moon is in direct sunlight for 2 weeks, right?by dylan604
- Instruments on the far side of the Moon will need some communication with Earth. While you can fantasize about running very long surface cables, the common solution consists of orbiting communications satellites.
There are currently at least 8 satellites orbiting the Moon. We can expect that number to increase. Also to add to the excitement, when a satellite deorbits there, it will never slow down, burn, fall into water, or disintegrate. Just one big hunk of equipment impacting at full speed. Enjoy your craters.
- Or Space Karen can fix his space junk...
Maybe even start paying for the toxic waste he is landing when his junk continuously fails to stay up and re-enters the atmosphere.
by isodev - So because 10 Million people want to have internet, 8 Billion people no longer get acccess to that resource?
That sounds like a nice attitude from you.
by Dlemlo - People need light to see in cities. This light serves a function.
Starlink satellites are emitting unintended and useless EMR that serves no function. It is not necessary for the function of these satellites.
This is a money issue. The question you should ask is whether it will cost more for SpaceX to fix their satellites than it will to build radio telescopes (which are not small devices) in space. Personally, I suspect launching radio telescopes into space will not be the cheaper solution.
by beloch - I realize this is off topic, but why do people use Claude of all models to write these, when its style is so obvious and so grating? I just immediately hit Back on the first Claudism.by moeffju
- Did you care about the writing style of Rex Edison before and now you are disappointed?
That page is not the New Yorker.
And don't get me wrong, but the writing of normal newspaper became shit through the internet not due to claude. You have the clickbait header, than you have the subtext which repeats the clickbait header, then you had the first paragraph which repeats the subheader, than you had the second paragraph giving you some random 'background infos' and then you got the gist of the story in the 3 or 4th paragraph.
by Dlemlo - Not to mention 13 em-dashes in a 500 word post. At this point you may as well ask Claude yourself about news and cut out the middleman. That'll also cut into their attempts to manipulate your opinion.by sigmoid10