• Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Wait so you’re saying the ships, just the ships moving across the pacific are enough reason to have low earth orbit satellites in such quantity they impede things as simple as looking at the stars? The ships can get internet from higher earth orbit satellites that don’t have to be constantly replaced. We haven’t been choosing between internet and no internet with starlink, there has been satallite internet way before starlink and there will be way after. All it takes is a less cooperative FAA not allowing so many rocket launches for the AI nazi company and slowly holes form in the coverage as the satellites burn up.

    • Dpek@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      that don’t have to be constantly replaced.

      Its by delibarate choice

      Increase the orbit by a bit and it quickly goes from about 5 years to decades and decades for reentry

      The entire point is that they will be replaceing them that often anyways, may as well get some other benefits

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      No, I’m saying that the ships would like it. Also having used geosynchronous satellite internet I have first hand experience that the lag sucks. Better than nothing, but Starlink has less lag. Probably faster but I don’t know what the latest speeds are. Still geosynchronous covers a lot of area which means you are sharing with a lot of people.

      Cruise ships pay a lot for internet because their customers want it. Crew on all ships want it for their breaks.

      Starlink isn’t worth it for just the above, but add in rural people on land and it makes sense. Though I understand the astronomers hate it.

      • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’ll be short with you.: I don’t care how much nicer starlink is, putting that many satellites into low earth orbit all the time is not good for the climate. The few thousand people on ships at any given time can wait to stream high def porn or download it while at port. All the needed uses of the internet can be met via slow higher orbiting satellites.

        • deadcream@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Lots of things are not necessary and are bad for the climate. You likely enjoy many of them. You start by reducing your own consumption.

            • Dpek@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Frankly its just about as much as anyone should care

              Ohmmy’s comment is essentualy “its bad for the envirement” (as if its not true for everything) and “they should just deal with it as is” as an attempt to shutdown the arguement

              I very much dont see how it would have continued any other way (excludeing a few roundabouts)