Musk is shitty because Ukrainians agreed not to use it for offensive weapons and then used it for offensive weapons?

> “It was never intended to be weaponized, but the Ukrainians have leveraged it in ways that were unintentional and not part of any agreement,” SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said

I won’t be surprised if the next post complains that Musk is complicit in murders because starlink is being used for offensive weapons 🤦🏻‍♂️

It's really just a few, but they have a lot of bots.

Says the person who started whining about "Elon shills" when the thread had like 5 comments

Dark matter tldr

Astro scientist: “hmm there must be some matter here but we can’t see it”

Other Astro scientist: “let’s just call it dark matter for now until we either figure out where it is or realize our math is wrong”

First Astro scientist: “ok”

Same for dark energy

...Because that one company accounts for half of all active satellites?

Fuck advancement and people in rural areas with poor to no access to internet. Also 3rd world countries with poor infrastructure, fuck all of them. Also, Ukrainian civilians can rot and die with no internet access, and lol, who needs to know about Iranian atrocities.

Comparing the good starlink has done, is doing, and will do for humanity to cigarettes is one of the most moronic analogies I've heard so far, but the day is young and the haters many.

[deleted]

Hubble's orbit has decayed over time. If proposals to reboost it come to pass (by SpaceX, no less), the problem will be ameliorated. If not, the telescope's near end of life anyway.

Meanwhile, future spaceborne telescopes are destined increasingly for far orbits (eg L2) to avoid the biggest photobomber of all - the Earth itself. In LEO it obscures nearly half the sky, limiting greatly what can be observed when - especially for long duration exposures. Far orbits bypass both that and satellite constellations.

[removed]

[removed]

The first time Elon tried to extort the US over Ukraine, we should’ve cut him off. We indeed have a problem, too much power in a lunatic’s hands.

That's like saying that X cigarette company has done more to reduce the chance of lung cancer than any other. You're kind of missing the fundamental issue that huge satellite constellations are bad for all ground-based astronomy. The best thing for astronomy would be not to have an enormous number of satellites in low orbit.

> Professional astronomy will be fine

Uhmm...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-01903-3

> [...] Observations affected by artificial satellites can become unusable for scientific research [...] SpaceX has been launching Starlink satellites [...] bright satellites could mess up their view of the cosmos by leaving streaks on telescope images as they glide past [...] Even the Hubble Space Telescope, which orbits more than 500 kilometers above the Earth’s surface, is vulnerable to these satellite streaks, as well as those from other satellite constellations.[..] we scanned the archive of Hubble Space Telescope images taken between 2002 and 2021. We find that [..] of 2.7% of the individual exposures with a typical exposure time of 11 minutes are crossed by satellites and that [...] increases with time. [...] With the growing number of artificial satellites currently planned, [...] Hubble Space Telescope images crossed by satellites will increase in the next decade

You can't get more professional than a telescope in actual space.

The latter is dark energy, a repulsive force. Dark matter is a gravitationally attractive force — one that can gravitationally lens light (without obscuring it) and hold galaxies together!

Scientists recently discovered dark matter in the rings around Uranus.

And yet because of them I can read complaints on Reddit.

Size isn’t everything.

Mercury orbits its star, has cleared its orbit and has collapsed into a spheroid under its own gravity.

Titan and Ganymede orbit planets and thus are moons.

Starlink has done more to protect dark skies than any other sat company to date https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-signs-agreement-to-prevent-starlink-from-interfering-with-astronomy#:~:text=The%20Starlink%20network%20currently%20includes,minimizing%20Starlink's%20impact%20on%20astronomy.

It's existence in general is just speculation. It's more of a temporary answer to fill in the gaps between what we currently think is true according to science. We base most of our astronomical models on Scientific methods that are proven to work in our universe, which has worked out so far. However, there are a few phenomena that are as of yet unexplainable. One of which is gravitational fluctuations in different places in our universe, despite us not being able to detect any matter in those places, which doesn't make sence to our scientific models. So we basically invented the concept of dark matter as to make it make sense of why there are gravitational dimples in the fabric of space time in those areas. Theoretically: If dark matter exists, and it would work the way we think it does, that would explain the things we cannot explain at the moment, and it would mean our understanding of the fundamentals of the universe are correct

Starlink isndoing more than any other sat company to date regarding protecting dark skies https://www.pcmag.com/news/spacex-signs-agreement-to-prevent-starlink-from-interfering-with-astronomy#:~:text=The%20Starlink%20network%20currently%20includes,minimizing%20Starlink's%20impact%20on%20astronomy.

[removed]

[removed]

Human advancement requires sacrifices. Professional astronomy will be fine, and it's hard for me to care that a hobbyist will not be able to image a particular galaxy quite as easy.

Ironically enough, starlink is doing the most out of any satalite company to minimise and eventually eliminate their impact of naked eye, amature, and ground based observatory astronomy.

Stating facts is not being an Elon licker buuuut somehow I dont think that makes a difference to you :D

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3211438/china-aims-launch-nearly-13000-satellites-suppress-elon-musks-starlink-researchers-say