https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60262100

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/4/22 10:49, RichA wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60262100

You seem to have an unwarranted preoccupation with this. If you know
how to image properly, then the satellites won't be an issue. For
visual observers, they are faint enough to be no threat. The benefits
outweigh the drawbacks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 07:49:33 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60262100

It's a lost cause. There are only a handful of professional projects
where this matters, and most can use technical means to mitigate any
serious problems. Sure, some policy about what is acceptable makes
sense, but the reality is there's room, and a likely need, for tens of thousands of satellites.

And, of course, the same inexpensive access to space that makes this
possible also makes it possible for the small number of impacted
projects to move there, too.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 4 February 2022 at 11:56:07 UTC-5, Drake Snow wrote:

On 2/4/22 10:49, RichA wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60262100

You seem to have an unwarranted preoccupation with this. If you know
how to image properly, then the satellites won't be an issue. For
visual observers, they are faint enough to be no threat. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

So, a satellite crosses and completely blots out the image of an object. How do you retrieve it?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2/4/22 19:40, RichA wrote:

On Friday, 4 February 2022 at 11:56:07 UTC-5, Drake Snow wrote:

On 2/4/22 10:49, RichA wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60262100

You seem to have an unwarranted preoccupation with this. If you know
how to image properly, then the satellites won't be an issue. For
visual observers, they are faint enough to be no threat. The benefits
outweigh the drawbacks.

So, a satellite crosses and completely blots out the image of an object. How do you retrieve it?

Image processing techniques (such as stacking) even most amateur
astronomers have access to will negate the satellites while leaving the
desired object untouched. Hasn't this been discussed and explained before??

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:37:44 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

And, of course, the same inexpensive access to space that makes this
possible also makes it possible for the small number of impacted
projects to move there, too.

I'll believe "inexpensive access to space" when I see it. While companies
like SpaceX certainly are reducing the cost of putting payloads into orbit, we're still not talking about the kind of small change a single University
can find room for in its research budget.
If we were talking about a project that met real human needs, instead
of just making money for one company, then indeed 'pollution', especially
when relatively minor, would have to be balanced against benefits.
But that this is going to bring the Internet to the Third World? Sorry, I think you've just swallowed the hype.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 21:16:40 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 2:37:44 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

And, of course, the same inexpensive access to space that makes this
possible also makes it possible for the small number of impacted
projects to move there, too.

I'll believe "inexpensive access to space" when I see it. While companies >like SpaceX certainly are reducing the cost of putting payloads into orbit, >we're still not talking about the kind of small change a single University >can find room for in its research budget.
If we were talking about a project that met real human needs, instead
of just making money for one company, then indeed 'pollution', especially >when relatively minor, would have to be balanced against benefits.
But that this is going to bring the Internet to the Third World? Sorry, I think
you've just swallowed the hype.

The cost of all our large ground-based telescopes and large survey
programs is on the same order as space missions cost. And the
satellite constellation doesn't impact lower budget astronomy.

Space-based Internet marks a great advance forward for humanity. It
does offer Internet to the entire world, affordably. It is an
essential next step forward, and it will certainly create wealth for
more than just the first person to do it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

WONDERFUL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Prime Minister Justin Blackface just tweeted
So, How's that pretty picture astro photography horseshit® working out for
ya?
The Russcom just launched a massive new spy satellite into orbit!!!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EoAHdwGBvU

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 22/02/04 4:49 PM, RichA wrote:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60262100

Whiners.. I'm sure that once Elon starts building our Dyson
sphere they'll again have all kinds of objections!

--
Jos

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 7:53:48 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Space-based Internet marks a great advance forward for humanity. It
does offer Internet to the entire world, affordably. It is an
essential next step forward, and it will certainly create wealth for
more than just the first person to do it.

I am less than optimistic about the power of "space-based Internet" to
bring about an end to all the repressive governments on the ground that are
the _real_ cause of world poverty.

If I were more optimistic about that, then I would find it to be well worth the observational cost.

Already, satellite dishes connected to more conventional satellite Internet have indeed helped get information to more people in the Third World, with
some economic benefits. It's not clear to me that a poor man's Iridium is
going to do vastly better than that, or even end up having much applicability to the Third World, where people have a hard enough time affording an ordinary cell phone.

John Savard

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 22:21:09 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

On Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 7:53:48 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Space-based Internet marks a great advance forward for humanity. It
does offer Internet to the entire world, affordably. It is an
essential next step forward, and it will certainly create wealth for
more than just the first person to do it.

I am less than optimistic about the power of "space-based Internet" to
bring about an end to all the repressive governments on the ground that are >the _real_ cause of world poverty.

If I were more optimistic about that, then I would find it to be well worth the
observational cost.

Already, satellite dishes connected to more conventional satellite Internet >have indeed helped get information to more people in the Third World, with >some economic benefits. It's not clear to me that a poor man's Iridium is >going to do vastly better than that, or even end up having much applicability >to the Third World, where people have a hard enough time affording an ordinary >cell phone.

In most of the developed world people have cell phones. And this
satellite Internet can be delivered very inexpensively, using antennas
the size of a small tablet as long as data rates are fairly low- a few
Mbps. That opens effective Internet access to a couple of billion
people.

That's immensely empowering. Whether it ends poverty or not... well,
that's a separate issue.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)