You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-7 points
*

Earth has natural interference, the moon, any other satellite…. so yeah they should have always been above the natural interference, they’ve always just “accounted” for it, but who knows how accurate that is. Obviously avoiding the interference is the better option. Any satellite also provides interference, it’s not star link is the only ones here… you don’t think that do you?

They’ve avoided spending the money putting radio in space, for what reason who knows, but there’s always interference here on earth, it’s odd you claim otherwise. There is actually radio astronomy in space, they point it towards earth instead, so take from this what you will, but it’s better away from interference than passing through it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

We don’t do a majority in space because of the absolutely massive size of the equipment needed… The VLA, for example, is 28 different dishes/antennas that are over 200 tons of metal a piece.

The signals that are being measured are absolutely tiny, so much so (and to your point about interference in the ground), that A microwave can cause issues.

The issue with the StarLink v2 is that; they are in LEO (Low Earth Orbit), they emit a lot more than other satellites, and there are a shit-ton of them - which means it’s harder to schedule equipment time around the interference theyre causing. And the problem is only getting worse.

Your comment is very disjointed though, so I’m not entirely sure what your point is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s the pivot Muskrats have been making since astronomers first started raising the alarm aboit Starlink. It’s our lazy scientists fault for not launching $4billion telescopes into space every year.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Huh, the same is done in space, you realize that… yeah?

My comment isn’t disjointed and it’s extremely easy to comprehend, put this shit in space like they always should have been doing and avoid the natural interference, as well as the other interference from the thousands of other satellites, starlink isn’t the only issue and it’s not fixed by getting rid of them…

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

The same is done in space, you realize that…

No, it isn’t. The radio astronomy done in space is for Gamma rays, x-rays, UV and IR. Things the atmosphere blocks.

What’s done on the ground is for much larger wavelengths (+1m) which, again, requires massive equipment that is currently is not feasible to send up.

The fix isn’t to eliminate StarLink, I agree. The fix in my opinion is to have stricter controls from the ITU about how much interference a device can produce.

Put that shit in space like they always should have

So which is it? It’s already done in space, or that’s the direction we should go?

Even your explanation about your original comment being “extremely easy to comprehend” has two opposing statements.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We actually reserve frequency bands specifically for radioastronomy. No devices can get licensing to transmit on those bands, and anything passing regulations shouldn’t (usually) interfere with it. The bands are chose specifically because their use in detecting certain astrological features.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Microblog Memes

!microblogmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.6K

    Posts

  • 65K

    Comments