Agnostic.com

2 0

DEBUNKING STARLINK

JJ-Baltazar 6 Dec 2
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

I got almost 20 minutes in but gave up at that point. This chap makes a number of good points but it's a very one sided polemic. A few points for the sake of balance.

I'm not certain, but when comparing the cost of a launch he said this included the staffing costs but then I think might have double counted space-x staff working directly for starlink. Either that or he double counted their wages when he added up the costs of the satellites themselves. And he certainly used the retail cost of a space launch rather that the internal cost. But for all I know the US government gets launches at cost price in return for investing at the ground level.

When comparing Starlink with satellite services provisioned from geostationary satellites we hear a great deal about how the greater ping times would have no effect on anyone but hardcore gamers. That's stretching the truth somewhat. Details of the comparison to these ping times are not provided but I can tell you that the 20-65 ms ping times discussed for Starlink would be more than adequate for most purposes. He's right that the most hardcore of live action gamers would baulk at that sort of lag but there's no mention of how much lag you get routing your traffic through a Geostationary satellite. Best case scenario that's over half a second. For many nearly a full second. Now while I agree that for Netflix all you care about it bandwidth and not whether a 90 minute movie takes an extra half second to start that's not the case for more interactive tasks. Even basic web browsing becomes a more frustrating experience when the page takes an extra half second to respond and saying Facebook would be unaffected could be misconstrued as suggesting that the video and voice functions in Messenger would be fine. In fact they'd be a almost unusuable. Same goes for any other Voice over IP service including the WiFi assisted calling that many users are unaware that they're benefiting from. Not to mention remote desktop services that are increasingly coming to the fore. If you think that a satellite service provided from a Geostationary satellite means you can move to the unspoiled wilderness and still work from home then you may have to give that some more thought, with Starlink that's a far more realistic prospect.

There's certainly a place for geostationary Internet but this comparison is anything but like for like. This is notable as there are other services being developed for this market. [circleid.com]

Watching the video (at least the 20 minutes I bothered with) you'd be forgiven for thinking that offering Internet connections from a Low Earth Orbit was a particular folly for Elon Musk alone.

We also hear a fair bit about contention on Starlink but nothing about the maximum capacity of a geostationary satellite. Also with thousands of devices in low earth orbit redundancy is a given but when a geostationary satellite has problems that's an issue for a whole continent.

The Kestler effect is a very real concern. I'm no expert but I think it's probably worth raising the issue. That said the narrator seems to be giving the impression that 46,000 new object would be added to low earth orbit every 5 years. In fact when you replace one of these the older satellite is de-orbited and burns up in the atmosphere. A satellite that fails and goes offline in such a way as to prevent it receiving the command to de-orbit will burn up eventually anyway. These low earth orbits are not entirely outside of the atmosphere and decay through the very slight drag from the thin remnants of atmosphere at these levels.

As side note the so called greenhouse effect that traps heat in the lower levels of the atmosphere also prevents this heat from warming the outer extremities of the atmosphere meaning these outer layers contract and are thinner. Satellites at that altitude expend less fuel to stay aloft thanks the fossil fuels we burn down here. A very thin silver lining indeed but a great bit of evidence for the occasional climate change denier who thinks increased temperatures are just due to increased solar activity.

Anyway it was at about this point that I wondered what other topics this Common Sense Skeptic might tackle and it is wall to wall Musk Musk Musk. I then lost hope that additional balance might be added if I stuck it through to the end.

And now m'lord the case for the defense shrugs and says plbst!

I'd better get on with some actual work.

@JJ-Baltazar Honestly no I'm not going to watch all of these. I like Thunderf00t and enjoyed his stuff when he was eviscerating every idiotic argument made by creationists and falling out with PZ Myers over a wally in a lift. But he too is a polemicist. With creationism it didn't matter much. Ridiculing creationists for their willful ignorance and taking a balanced view of their arguments gives pretty similar results. Yet here the first half of his video is lambasting Musk for his failures and his dishonesty. He doesn't even mention Starlink until we're 15 minutes in. Fair enough he thinks Musk is a piece of shit. I couldn't give a monkeys. I don't care about Musk I don't love him, I don't hate him and I'm not defending him. Were the boot on the other foot then the Paul Mason of old would have no hesitation in spotting the genetic fallacy at play here.

When he finally discussed Starlink he does seem to have a better grasp of the topic than the chap in the first video. He knows that the satellites will be deorbited at end of life and acknowledges the synergies between owning a proven satellite launch company and offering satellite internet services. He notes that other companies are also attempting to deliver this form of technology though he's incorrect to say they're all bankrupt. It'll be a while before Amazon runs out of money and they've got synergies on the network side. The comments on power are interesting. The interference with astronomy is also an in worthwhile point. Note that in the image used all the satellites are quite close together and travelling in the same direction. That's because we're looking satellites that have just been launched rather than in their final configuration. Certainly little consolation for the astronomer whose nights work was affected but less of a concern than if the whole sky always looked like that to ground based astronomers.

The rest of the stuff doesn't look like it'll be telling me anything I don't know already yes Musk fan boys really are overlooking the sort of character traits that are necessary to become a billionaire. Yawn.

If there's anything in those videos that addresses the technical points I've made please do feel free to summarize, transcribe or provide a time index.

@JJ-Baltazar Was reading this over lunch and was reminded of this discussion. [jamesomalley.substack.com]

0

An excellent analysis. Thank you for sharing this video!

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:637078
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.