Internet for All, a good or bad thing ?

[GS3]

I can already see an array of fixed satellites at night. We live remotely enough near the top of a hill not to have light pollution so on a clear night you can see these bright white lights in a clear grid at even spacing across the sky. I can certainly see the problem facing astronomers.

This is physically impossible on several levels. It is physically impossible to have a grid of stationary satellites across the sky.

I would like to see a cite supporting this concept. If it existed Wikipedia and many scientific web sites would mention it. What is the name of this grid of satellites and what are they used for?

And why would GPS and other low orbit satellites be moving around so fast in their orbits if they could be made to sit still in the sky?

From the article linked in the OP:

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Low_ ... l_999.html

Numerous satellites are required for LEO internet connections, as due to their low orbit they revolve around the Earth extremely quickly-in under 2 hours.

This means that each satellite is capable of only providing a connection at a certain point on the Earth's surface for a brief interval, requiring the need for numerous satellites to be produced to maintain steady connections.

The only satellites that are geostationary are too far away to be seen and are located over the equator and cannot be anywhere else so it is impossible to have a grid of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

A geostationary orbit (GSO), also referred to as a geosynchronous equatorial orbit[a] (GEO), is a circular geosynchronous orbit 35,786 kilometres (22,236 miles) above Earth's equator and following the direction of Earth's rotation.

An object in such an orbit has an orbital period equal to the Earth's rotational period, one sidereal day, and so to ground observers it appears motionless, in a fixed position in the sky. The concept of a geostationary orbit was popularised by the science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke in the 1940s as a way to revolutionise telecommunications, and the first satellite to be placed in this kind of orbit was launched in 1963.

Communications satellites are often placed in a geostationary orbit so that Earth-based satellite antennas (located on Earth) do not have to rotate to track them but can be pointed permanently at the position in the sky where the satellites are located. Weather satellites are also placed in this orbit for real-time monitoring and data collection, and navigation satellites to provide a known calibration point and enhance GPS accuracy.

Having a grid of low earth orbit satellites goes against the laws of physics of our universe. If anyone is found to be doing this then the government should be notified immediately so they can take appropriate action.

[antikythera]

Again, I know what I have observed at night, you do not need a powerful telescope to see geosynch satellites at all and they can be seen with the naked eye at certain times of the year too.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/h ... atellites/

[Dark Owl]

Democratisation of information must be a good thing, but governments have ways to censor it.

Zillions of private-enterprise satellites in orbit cannot be a good thing overall, and Musk should never have been granted a licence to launch.

at least the download speeds are good enough for us to enjoy "browsing", but I cannot upload a YouTube video.

Ha! I can only dream of figures like those!

[antikythera]

Ouch! Been there too Dark Owl. Where we used to live in the middle of suburbia was too far from the exchange and cabinets because of the cabling route.

Now we live somewhere rural, we are near enough to an broadband cabinet to get a current connection of 32.297Mbps downstream, 9.999 upstream on BT Infinity. The flip side is absolutely crap mobile signals. There's 2G from both O2 and Vodafone, no Three or EE at all.

[AZgl1800]

Democratisation of information must be a good thing, but governments have ways to censor it.

Zillions of private-enterprise satellites in orbit cannot be a good thing overall, and Musk should never have been granted a licence to launch.

at least the download speeds are good enough for us to enjoy "browsing", but I cannot upload a YouTube video.

Ha! I can only dream of figures like those!

those are the typical speeds that we "enjoyed" back when we had ADSL
ADSL gave up much better upload speeds, but the reliability was for crap.

[GS3]

Again, I know what I have observed at night, you do not need a powerful telescope to see geosynch satellites at all and they can be seen with the naked eye at certain times of the year too.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/h ... atellites/

You may believe you know but you are mistaken.

I can already see an array of fixed satellites at night. We live remotely enough near the top of a hill not to have light pollution so on a clear night you can see these bright white lights in a clear grid at even spacing across the sky. I can certainly see the problem facing astronomers.

First off I see you have dropped the "clear grid at even spacing across the sky" claim and now only claiming to have seen geostationary satellites with the naked eye.

And I am not sure what is the "problem facing astronomers" that you mention.


You know, the cite in your link supports what I am saying and not what you are saying.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/h ... atellites/

Many geosynchronous satellites shine between magnitudes 10–12, so you can spot them in telescopes as small as 4 inches. They're also easy to photograph. High ISOs and fast, low light lenses aren't necessary, just a camera capable of a several-minute-long time exposure — long enough for the stars to trail, so you can easily tell them apart from the satellites.

So, no naked eye. Four inches in the best of cases. Not only that but it explains how to identify them. You can't just look up there and they are identifiable. You point the telescope or camera in the right direction and leave it there fixed (cancelling the equatorial rotation which would normally be on) and after enough time the satellites can be identified because they are the ones not moving while the stars are moving.

No astronomer, no matter how knowledgeable, can look up at the sky with the naked eye and see and identify a geosynchronous satellite. And you can't either.

If you thought you did you were mistaken and it is a good opportunity to learn and study about this very interesting topic.

My main field of knowledge is nautical celestial navigation, not astronomy and I have spent some hours of my lifetime looking for objects in the skies.

[antikythera]

Read the comments below the article I linked to as well, I'm not imagining or misinterpreting anything, you can and clearly need to learn the world of astronomy is moving beyond the realms of your current knowledge levels too.

There are satellites in fixed orbit visible in the night sky where I live to the naked eye at the moment and yes it can be done as they are much brighter than anything else since the Sun is not completely setting and it reflects off them. They are in fixed orbit so appear in the same positions each night and spaced apart evenly (which is a form of grid as far as I'm concerned given they have to be in a regulated distance from the Earth and other satellites in orbit).

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/spac ... night-sky/

Agreeing to disagree is probably the only way to end this.

[Dark Owl]

I am not sure what is the "problem facing astronomers" that you mention.

I'm not sure what problem he means, but there is definitely a problem when there is a significant risk that any particular research photo of the night sky is contaminated by the passage of a satellite, however faint it might be to the naked eye.

It is only after complaints that StarLink considered ways to reduce the visual brightness of their payloads, it did not even occur to them that polluting the night sky is not a responsible thing to do - never mind the additional clutter which can only add to the difficulties of future launches. Putting people into space is perilous enough without the risk of high-velocity debris penetrating cabins and space suits, which can also knock out unmanned satellites (particularly large ones).

The more there is up there, the greater the risk of collision - which then generates more debris and more collisions...

Professional ground-based astronomy can work around the problem. It is no longer the case that long photographic exposures are required to capture faint objects, electronic imaging uses a series of short exposures and then "stacks" them to imitate a long exposure (but with the benefit of eliminating "shake"). Frames containing a passing satellite can be removed from the set, if they can be identified and not confused with some transient phenomenon which is actually of interest.

The real problem is that nobody was consulted before StarLink went ahead with launches, because there are no international conventions requiring them to.

[GS3]

The initial assertion that there is a grid of geostationary satellites so bright that they are visible to the naked eye and present a problem to astronomers is just preposterous.

After the initial assertion there has been so much weaseling and moving of goal posts that we are now just wasting time.

No astronomer is going to tell you he can see and identify a geostationary satellite with the naked eye, much less a grid of them. And if he can't you can't either.

And the thread was about Low Earth Orbit satellites anyway which cannot be stationary no matter what.

And saying "astronomy is moving beyond the realms of your current knowledge" is just silly. It is not a matter of astronomy but of basic physics. Our eyesight is not any better now than it was 200 years ago. Probably worse.

Digging in your heels and trying to somehow salvage your argument does not make you look good.

I think I am done with this tangent. If anyone still has any doubts they can go to some science or astronomy forum and ask if it is possible to see and identify a geostationary satellite with the naked eye.

[bob466]

Everyone should have uncensored Internet access.

[rene]

I expect people to not even closely think about my disagreement with such --- see e.g. GS3's "Good. Obviously." --- but with a large majority of us here old enough to have known the world before there was an internet I really am wondering if anyone is able to articulate in what sense the world is now better as a result of said internet. In the sense of me actually, not just conceptually, having to battle the utter rubbish said obviously good internet poisons children's minds with, combined with largely anyone not over the age of 30/35 being immersed most waking moments in some "soclal network" or other rather than doing something useful, I feel able to articulate why it is not.

"Good Obviously." No, not obvious to me at all. Feel it in fact much easier to consider it "Good. Obviously." to yank the plug today rather than tomorrow. The promise! The promise! Yah. The humanity. The humanity.

[Vladimir00]

Everyone should have uncensored Internet access.

Unfortunately, a real internet freedom is not possible
Some food for thought
https://www.in-formality.com/wiki/index ... g_(Global)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaymcgrego ... 682fa04c92
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/js ... ersonation
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... l-networks
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/pla ... ral-grass/
https://www.ibtimes.com/wikipedia-paid- ... es-1449172
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/03/ ... a-figures/
Money rules on the Internet as elsewhere.

[Moem]

I like the idea of the Internet being AVAILABLE to all, but not EMBEDDED in everything we use.

That's an important distinction and I happen to agree with you.

[Moonstone Man]

I like the idea of the Internet being AVAILABLE to all, but not EMBEDDED in everything we use.

Be afraid. Be very afraid... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilets_in_Japan

[DoodMann]

at least the download speeds are good enough for us to enjoy "browsing", but I cannot upload a YouTube video.

Now, in my place. You'll either hate it or like it. Where download speeds are as deep as mariana trench, and upload speeds as high as a hill! Can't grab a pic, it's rush time for internet here.

[bob466]

Everyone should have uncensored Internet access.

Unfortunately, a real internet freedom is not possible

You're missing the point.

[Vladimir00]

Everyone should have uncensored Internet access.

Unfortunately, a real internet freedom is not possible

You're missing the point.

In the vast majority of countries today, censorship is at the level ISP absent or very weak (In my country, many sites are blocked at the level ISP .But all blockages can be easily bypassed.) In some countries there is serious censorship at the level ISP. But I think in the near future advanced anti-censorship tools (such as a snowflake or psiphon) will largely solve this problem.
The real problem it is a hidden control of information on the Internet from organizations (governments or large private corporations) and people with big money.There is no solution to this problem.

[bob466]

Unfortunately, a real internet freedom is not possible

You're missing the point.

In the vast majority of countries today, censorship is at the level ISP absent or very weak (In my country, many sites are blocked at the level ISP .But all blockages can be easily bypassed.) In some countries there is serious censorship at the level ISP. But I think in the near future advanced anti-censorship tools (such as a snowflake or psiphon) will largely solve this problem.

In my country many Web Sites are also blocked by court orders but as you say...can be easily By-passed. As I said...Everyone should have uncensored Internet access because I value Freedom and that's a good thing.

[Vladimir00]

I agree.Freedom is good (after spending a month in a mental hospital, I began to value my freedom very much )

[Dark Owl]

One of the problems with a free-for-all Internet (or rather, the user of a free-for-all Internet) is the spread of misinformation. People are psychologically inclined to believe whatever supports their particular views, even if it is untrue or later revealed as untrue. Take the spread of misinformation about coronavirus as an example: there are people who seriously believe it is all a fiction, because that's what they want to believe and they can find plenty of other people out there supporting that view.

It is also now very difficult to make a living as an independent technical author, because the information one might have compiled into a marketable book now has to compete with the same information being made available for free on the Internet - either officially, or by voluntary effort, or unofficially by plagiarism. Before the Internet, if you needed or wanted specialist information, you had to go to a library (who had to buy books), buy a book yourself, or pay for a consultation with an expert - all of which financially supported the people who created the information.

However, the information available on the Internet can be very low quality, because anybody can publish for very low cost, whereas to get a book published is costly upfront and therefore subject to quality checking to ensure the cost isn't wasted. I would trust a book more than an uncorroborated Internet source, but now there are few books.

Despite all that, on principle I still believe democratisation of information is a good thing because it provides the means for populations to hold governments to account. There can be no means to moderate the Internet, because that opens the way for censorship.

I'm not sure that providing Internet by satellite is democratisation. Launching and maintaining satellites is expensive - somebody, somewhere, is picking up the tab, and will require their pound of flesh. The same applies to cabled infrastructure, however.