Comments from Telegraph Readers to Complaints about LEO satellites

[Albion]

It was interesting to read some of the comments from readers in today's Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/12/02/astronomers-accuse-elon-musk-blocking-stars-starlink-satellites/, in reaction to an article on Low Earth Orbit satellites and the Royal Astronomical Society raising concerns about Starlink satellites and similar (Oneweb, Amazon) on astronomy.

''Yeah, providing low cost, high speed internet access to the poor and remote of the world, connecting them so that they can trade and earn money is a tad foolish. Far better to keep giving money to dictators in the hope that some of it passes down to them.''

''Academics or progress? Let the academics put their telescopes above the low earth orbit satellites that people need and contribute to wealth creation''

and my favourite;

''Eccentric First World star gazers would deny Third World citizens the right to a connection to the internet just because it would interfere with their precious little hobby!''

 

 

[refractor2345]

It is really bad, it mostly interferes with astrophotography, a brilliant picture with a bunch of symmetrical  trails all of satellites, I even found a petition on change.org, That's what I am linking it here

Link: https://www.change.org/p/stop-spacex-starlink-from-spoiling-outer-space-for-humanity

Link 2: https://www.change.org/p/spacex-starlink-stop-the-pollution-of-night-sky

Edited December 3, 2021 by refractor2345
LInk

[refractor2345]

17 minutes ago, Albion said:

''Yeah, providing low cost, high speed internet access to the poor and remote of the world, connecting them so that they can trade and earn money is a tad foolish. Far better to keep giving money to dictators in the hope that some of it passes down to them.''

So, not meaning that don't put satellite into earth's orbit, we don't want to say that we don't want any progress or something, it is, just like I say interfering with our already polluted night sky, Simple measures such as covering them with Black 3.0 and/or place them in higher than 700 kilometers in space can improve things a lot, there will be problems with the thermal management, but we can deal with it can't we we have surely deal with worse situations before.

 

Edited December 3, 2021 by refractor2345
Spelling

[Stefek]

Somehow I am not fully convinced that the main motivation and drive to put satellites up there is "to provide high speed internet access to the poor and remote" , because poor  will not automatically become rich enough to pay for it. Providing something to poor and remote is a good marketing pitch though. 

 

[apaulo]

all this stuff is put up there for a reason, and its not for the poor and remote areas. thats like saying gps was invented for  ambulances etc getting to remote areas for to help the injured faster. hahaha try smart bombs and first strike.  everything else was a spin off after quite a few years. 

[niallk]

Agreed - its always about following the money.

I heard an interesting one: LEO networks offer lower latency than other global connection options (the RF up/down links + importantly intra satellite laser based optical relay links).

This can be exploited by market traders...

Unfortunately it seems like LEO networks will proliferate as they are a key facet for 6G proposals- BW, latency, coverage

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

Eccentric?! Normal perfectly I am. Wibble.

[Captain Scarlet]

The contempt that oozes out of that last one is something else. Anyone who has a non-mainstream pastime is eccentric, and eccentric is of course contemptible. And it’s perfectly legitimate to “kick over the sandcastle” of such a person.

The person who wrote that would’ve been a serious bully at school.

[Swoop1]

Reading "below the line" on the interweb is the fast track to rage and insanity.

[Stu]

Gents,

We’ve hidden a few posts on here which are just plain offensive and unnecessary. Whilst not directly political, they were insulting to a certain section of the population and will not be tolerated.

Please refrain from this sort of activity or moderated posts at least will be used where appropriate.

Thank you for your understanding.

Stu

[Astrobits]

I think that rather than rant about it here, a letter to the editor pointing out the negative aspects of the satellites would be better. 

Nigel 

[Stephenstargazer]

The negative comments to Telegraph look very short sighted. What is Musk's proposal for clearing up his space junk after its economic life, when he will no doubt have left the company and taken his money?

It is as thoughtless as nuclear generators without decommissioning plans. We must get away from development that does not address future impacts. Surely we have learnt that from climate change?

[oobydooby]

Hmmm.  Giving fast internet to poor people who cannot afford computers anyway, seems a bit suspect. Surely it would be more economically sound to build land based transmitting equipment than sending billions on sending up a space network that would cost billions more on maintaining stability of all the satellites.

Just a thought to add to the pros/cons.