this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
376 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

83027 readers
3630 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 7 points 41 minutes ago

He never respected his fellow man, why start now?

[–] MuteDog@lemmy.world 3 points 21 minutes ago

They might put a million satellites into orbit, but they're certainly not going to be orbital data centers. At least not as we currently understand data centers. The idea that space is cold and therefore a great place to put data centers that get hot is the idea of a stoned moron talking out of their ass. Space is a vacuum, you know what else is a vacuum, the part of your portable coffee mug that keeps your beverage warm or cold for ages, because vacuum is a crazy good insulator. Just because space is cold doesn't mean the heat from an orbital data center can dissipate into it. This dumb idea is never going to happen unless data canter technology improves to the point where they aren't environmental disasters anymore.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 21 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] TransNeko@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Welcome to SpaceX where we provide a garenteed night sky view that is simply to die for. Subscribe now to enjoy your favorite night sky. Subscribe now for a lower price than normal. Remember, Subscription to SpaceX's night sky is mandated by USA law. Those who don't subscribe will be executed as Traitors and Terrorists. SpaceX's Night Sky experience normally costs $399 per day but if you subscribe in the next 30 seconds using the following code (insert code here) you can enjoy SpaceX's Night Sky for just $99.99 a day. subscribe now. Terms and conditions apply. SpaceX is not responsible for any propery damage, injuries, and/or deaths related to SpaceX satellites falling from orbit. Prices scale based on your race and gender with White men receiving a 100% discount.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 7 points 58 minutes ago (2 children)

There are roughly 15,000 total at the moment ? I wonder what that will do to animals and insects lives.

[–] thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world 3 points 18 minutes ago

is already so bad. i do astro timelapses and it's all you see anymore. they stand out so much now, if the quantity gets 100x'd it'll be a nightmare.

it will blot out the stars...

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 0 points 30 minutes ago (1 children)

There aren’t many animals or insects in low-earth orbit though, thankfully.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 1 points 14 minutes ago

Yeah but they use the light to navigate too. They use this planet too.

[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago

everything the tech bros touch, dies

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 9 points 1 hour ago
[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 6 points 1 hour ago

Down with the space clankers

[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 19 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Well that wannabe nazi took everything else, so why not the sky?

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I thought they couldn't take the sky from me!

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

We haven't even finished burning the sky and boiling the sea!

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 56 points 4 hours ago (8 children)

LEO satellites decay very quickly every one of them will burn up in the atmosphere within 10 years. They need to be replaced constantly. As soon as spacex goes out of business these will all fall out of the sky.

[–] Manjushri@piefed.social 7 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

Don't count on it. These things don't just zip along in their orbits. LEO is crowded. They have to maneuver to avoid collisions... a lot.

Over the past six months, Starlink satellites have been increasingly performing collision avoidance maneuvers. According to a report filed by SpaceX with the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), SpaceX broadband satellites were forced to avoid more than 25 thousand times from December 1, 2022 to May 31, 2023. And since their launch in 2019, the total number of maneuvers has reached 50 thousand.

If Starlink or any other mega-constellation company loses control of their satellites for any reason, there could be collisions. A recent study (Note: PDF) suggests that a sufficiently powerful CME could cause a runaway Kessler Syndrome in as little as 2.8 days if the loss of control lasts that long.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 1 points 51 minutes ago

I mean with proper regulation or would be slightly better. If they can maneuver to avoid collisions they can likes deorbit themselves at a quicker pace.

The main issue is if ever they went under someone would buy it, or try to buy it, at a discount. So they likely wouldn't go away even if Star link went under.

[–] Mihies@programming.dev 15 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Polluting atmosphere doing so.

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That’s fair but unfortunately nothing compared to the pollution from launching them

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Which is also nothing compared to a slew of other pollution sources

[–] Zorque@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Which is also nothing compared to the general entropy of the universe.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 25 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Any way to help them do that?

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 15 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

No way that’s cheaper or easier than waiting

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 hours ago

At least not legally

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I'm wondering from a pure academic standpoint here honest. Like What about a laser?

[–] youCanCallMeDragon@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago (5 children)

Lmao I wish. Satellites and their components have to be “hardened” to survive extreme temperatures and radiation in space. There’s probably nothing on it you could disable with any laser you could buy. Plus there’s the matter of targeting them.

[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Destroying these satellites with lasers poses a similar problem to what happens when you light zombies on fire: the satellites are held in space by their momentum and the reduced atmosphere vs Earth's gravity. If you break the satellites into pieces via laser, then now you have uncontrolled and unpredictable space junk to deal with. Some of the pieces might return sooner, but what was once a concern is now a problem. Just like how a zombie at your door is very concerning, a zombie on fire at your door is an immediate problem.

Now, what could be interesting would be sending up another satellite that sprays black paint on the sun-facing side of other satellites. The energy absorbed and then exhausted could propel it towards Earth sooner. Maybe? I dunno, I'm just a simple country Fartographer, your honor.

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Good ole brute force is the best method, though, as you said, targeting is a huge problem. Basically you need a low Earth orbit shotgun.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Do they have those at Walmart?

Probably. I imagine you could probably get one at a gun show in Texas

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago

Oh yeah. I keep forgetting about that. I suppose I need to study it a little more to make it stick.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)

Who needs to track asteroids when everyone can have NzI-Link internet?

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 95 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It's so infuriating... I occasionally do astrophotography and it's getting to the point where any long exposure just has satellite streaks everywhere... Fuck Musk.

[–] yucandu@lemmy.world 36 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

I remember just 10 years ago using a special app on my phone to alert me of any potential satellite flares so I could run out and catch them.

Now I can't look at the night sky for 2 minutes without seeing one.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 16 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

You can actually see some in broad daylight. I was shocked one day looking up and seeing one (white dot in the picture, verified with sat tracking app).

[–] some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 1 points 27 minutes ago

This photo is AI!

[–] Link@rentadrunk.org 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

For the uneducated, what do these look like and can you see them in areas with light pollution?

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 1 points 25 minutes ago

Yes. They are technically reflected sunlight, so they are as bright as the sun, just very small. It makes sense you can see them during sunlight, since they are reflections of sunlight. You will typically only see them on the side of the sky opposite the sun, but the exact angle depends on the location and orientation of the satellite and the surface that is actually doing the reflection.

Generally speaking, they are dots that fade in somewhat gradually, moving at a consistent pace (typically slower than a shooting star, but faster than an airplane at cruising altitude) in a straight line direction for awhile at full brightness, then fading away.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 45 minutes ago

If you look towards the horizon with the sun, a little before sunrise or after sunset, you'll probably be able to see flashes of them as they catch the light.

[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 69 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

LEO satellite internet service is life changing for people who live in underserviced, rural, and remote areas - but it’s a tragedy that it’s controlled by billionaires and the USA. Growth at all costs mindset cannot accept that they should exist only as an ISP of last resort, so they’re servicing urban areas and planning data centres.

[–] CorrectAlias@piefed.blahaj.zone 21 points 3 hours ago

It would be better to support public fiber infrastructure (through PUDs) in almost every way. I know not all remote areas can be reached with fiber, but most rural areas can be. My county has done exactly that with the rural portions - they focused on rolling it out to underserved rural areas first (even though it was more expensive to do that up front). Now, those rural areas have gigabit fiber and they didn't have to pay tens of thousands to wire it up to their homes.

[–] Tim_Bisley@piefed.social 30 points 5 hours ago

They did a previous study on what 65,000 satellites would look like and that was pretty bleak. Also this bit:

Latitudes near 50° Will Experience the Worst Light Pollution.

Thats a large chunk of Europe.

[–] teyrnon@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 hours ago

Maybe it's time to crowdsource a satellite killing satellite.

load more comments
view more: next ›