• Veneroso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Awww poor Musk. Maybe stop helping Russia by giving them access while denying Ukraine. Also fuck you for ruining Twitter .

    Edit - apparently coverage on the Crimean coast was never activated. Still dickish for helping Russia. They’re sanctioned up the wazoo and this might come back to bite him. Starlink is a recipient of US Federal Assistance and that can easily be leveraged.

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        It was by no means perfect, but it did become the defacto town square. The Arab Spring was facilitated in part through Twitter and George Floyd related protests were arranged, amplified and shared through Twitter.

        There’s plenty of incompetence in Musk, but a significant part of this “effort” was deliberate, as a favor to other like minded billionaires upset and frightened that the people had a working, maturing megaphone. They needed that to be broken, if not fully silenced, and musk was the pathetic piece of shit with daddy issues that the other old money billionaires could convince to do the work here as an attempt to gain their favor.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Which is why I don’t understand why the likes of Blue Sky and Mastodon try and copy it. It’s a terrible idea.

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        Please try reading the article before commenting. This is the very first paragraph.

        The FCC has once again rejected a Starlink plan to deploy thousands of internet satellites in very low earth orbits (VLEO) ranging from 340 to 360 kilometers. In an order published last week, the FCC wrote: “SpaceX may not deploy any satellites designed for operational altitudes below the International Space Station,” whose orbit can range as low as 370 kilometers.

        • fadedmaster@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          8 months ago

          That doesn’t say anything about lethal range. It just says they won’t allow it to be lower than the ISS’s orbit. It could be because of “lethal range” or it could be that they want as little crap in the way of routes to and from the ISS.

          I looked over the article (albeit very quickly) just in case you didn’t quote enough of the article on accident and I didn’t see anything about lethality. I could have missed it or I’m not reading between the lines (maybe missing their meaning in the article).

          • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            There’s less than 10 kilometers between them and SpaceX has been known to have some go out of their designed orbit. So it has the potential to be and they determined the risk is not worth it.

          • Veneroso@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            In general, these things are zipping around the earth at 17,000 mph. There’s 5,504 of them. Space is already dangerous with all of the space garbage in orbit. If these were to collide it could easily make getting things into orbit due to the debris and the chain reaction if the debris caused more debris from impact even more dangerous. Space garbage really is something we don’t have a solution for.

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              This is a pretty ignorant take and borderline disinformation. Yes they travel fast. Yes there are a lot of them. No they don’t pose any risk of blocking space travel even if they all exploded because they’re not in a stable orbit where they can just stay up there forever. They’re low enough that they’re facing a constant pull back into earth.

              • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Just for others, they’d all burn up in the atmosphere in a few years.

                So it may disrupt things temporarily but not long term.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 months ago

    “The FCC has once again rejected a Starlink plan to deploy thousands of internet satellites in very low earth orbits (VLEO) ranging from 340 to 360 kilometers. In an order published last week, the FCC wrote: “SpaceX may not deploy any satellites designed for operational altitudes below the International Space Station,” whose orbit can range as low as 370 kilometers. Starlink currently has nearly 6000 satellites orbiting at around 550 kilometers”

    Fun fact: Tiāngōng, the Chinese Space Station currently in orbit, operates as high as 450km up (its currently at 360km). So its even closer to the Starlink constellation that the ISS is.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      At some point there will be more satellites than is feasible to manage.

      If they aren’t already, will we start treating them like telephone poles or cell towers?

      • sirspate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s already a bit of a mess to manage, especially if you include the debris. Back in 2007 China blew up a satellite, and as of a few years ago that represented almost a third of all tracked space debris… (it has its own wikipedia page) If these jokers ever start deliberately blowing up each others’ satellites, we could end up in a situation where space becomes inaccessible.

        • Patches@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          If these jokers ever start deliberately blowing up each others’ satellites, we could end up in a situation where space becomes inaccessible.

          We don’t know who struck first, us or them, but we know that it was us that scorched the sky. At the time, they were dependent on solar power and it was believed that they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the sun.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Nope, everyone knows that the best source of power is humans.

            Mobius even admits like two lines later that the machines even have fusion power, and then no one ever talks about that ever again. The whole movie makes no real sense when you think about it.

            • Patches@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Well for starters they wanted to use us for computing power not energy. But it didn’t test well because your average movie goer didn’t understand.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          There’s wildly different orbits. Starlink flies low and has a decaying orbit due to atmospheric drag meaning nothing is going to stay up there for very long. They designed them to just burn up on reentry after ~5 years. Stuff in much higher orbits are more of an issue because they don’t experience the same amount of drag.

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    Ok FCC, then how do you plan on getting internet to me? Choppy terrestrial with 20% packet loss wasn’t working, Verizon lte with 2mbps upload wasn’t working, hughesnet…do we need to even mention it? Verizon dsl with 1.5/.25 isn’t even internet.

    So please tell me how you’re going to do something about it other than deny me solutions? Starlink has been the best thing to happen to rural US in a long time.

    • topinambour_rex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you want low latency go to urban areas. Otherwise accept medium latencies and stop to scream at the sky.

      Does the International Space Station worthes safety means nothing to countryside people ? Are you so self centered ?

    • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      8 months ago

      So, what you’re saying is, their current setup is working for you, and their new proposal for lower-orbit satellites isn’t really necessary?

  • yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Has Starlink considered just using really tall antennas? Should be a lot easier than all the risks associated with putting equipment into low Earth orbit.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah y’know who’d love a low orbit relay dialed into all the root servers? Rhymes with Tooti Fruity all Rootie?

  • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    I can SEE his removedass writing a mad xit right now in my head, and I hate that its so easy for me to do this.