I would ask people to consider the benefits to the globe of having ubiquitous 100+ Mbps internet no matter where you are.
Most of the people, myself included, who get Starlink get it because there’s no other viable option - usually due to distance from towns and cities.
Certainly there is some pollution as a result of building and sending the 2,000+ satellites, but it may be a net positive compared to the environmental impact of digging a trench to each property, manufacturing and laying a fibre optic cable to the end user.
The end user routers use about 30 watts which is also a higher cost compared to the 5 watts or so most other technologies use. Mine runs on solar.
I’m not happy about giving Elon money for this service of course given his behaviour - he’s not the majority owner at least.
The unintended interference is probably something that can be designed away to some degree - I’m guessing harmonics from the beam forming are tricky if that’s the cause.
You think launching a bunch of satellites is cheaper than laying fiber optic over long stretches of the country?
And no, it doesn’t need to be buried.
It feels like we’re approaching a situation where good clean astronomical data is going to have to be collected off-world.
Like, people in astronomy must be talking about such a scenario and how far away it is and what needs to be done.
A moon base seems like an obvious solution with dishes and telescopes all over the place.
Capitalism sure is efficient at exploiting externalities. SpaceX gets to ignore the difficulty and cost of stopping radiation pollution. The cost gets externalised to research institutions, academic researchers, government agencies (and so indirectly the taxpayer), and other corporations. Whereas it might cost $X for SpaceX to not cause the problem in the first place, it might cost $10X or $50X or more when everyone else has to duplicate cost and effort to overcome SpaceX’s pollution.
