Being in a place where you can see the structure of the Milky Way very much feels like one is part of the Universe. There is stuff out there, it has structure, color and form. When the stars disappear, so does our sense of place.
There is so much we don't know, and so much of what we do as humans is arbitrage to trade something away from someone before they know what they have. Or to sell something only accounting for one dimension of value or worth.
I agree wholly with this. Living in Southern NM we have a lot of stars. Just short drives and we can see the actual Milky Way band. I've always been saddened when I think of people who live in large cities and don't get to regularly see these things.
Then, the first time I spotted Saturn and Jupiter with my telescope in my driveway I was struck with fresh awe. I had seen them before, in larger telescopes and higher resolution, but to track it with your own, to see them and try to comprehend how big they are in order order to be seen from so far away... I still get chills.
Doesn't really matter if it's cheaper if there are enough barriers to scaling on masts (e.g. who owns the rights to each one?). It's plausible that would be a very different company in basically every way that matters. Sometimes it's not about what's cheaper, so much as what's you have a method to do at all.
Line of sight is a major issue and getting masts within line of sight of all customers Starlink is targeting would be very expensive. Not just masts, but all the new fiber to connect them.
LOS is still an issue for them and always will be. You can't ignore physics.
Curvature of the Earth, buildings, mountains, hills, valleys, canyons. The way that radio waves actually move around and through an area. You can only get a tower to see so far.
Note that there are still a lot of uncovered areas. The cost of getting towers into those areas and providing full coverage is massive. Remember, as I said in my previous comment, it's also not just towers and antenna. You need fiber running to every single one of them.
Almost every place where people live and work is covered. I would venture to guess that less than 100,000 people in the whole USA outside of Alaska live in places that are not covered by Verizon. Yeah maybe you'll find a town here and there of a few hundred people in a very remote area that is not covered. Similarly I bet the vast majority of the USA is reached by at least one line of sight FM radio station.
For specific examples of areas that are not covered on the map: north west maine. Nobody lives there. There are no incorporated towns north or west of Rangley or south or west of Alagash. It is private forestry company land.
Death Valley.
A part of east texas near the LA border. I am not too familiar with this area but I believe it is part of the area called the "Big Thicket" it is very sparsely populated.
The Nevada test site, Nellis AFB, Area 51. I am sure the military has its own radio coverage here where it needs it.
Other Parts of Nevada and Eastern Oregon and Washington and North Central Idaho. These areas are sparsely inhabited deserts or mountains.
This seems like a city-centric view of things. You get Verizon near highways just about everywhere around here, but 1 mile from the highway at my house I get spotty Verizon on one side of my house (enough to use voice on phone, not enough to reliably use a hotspot device), and pretty much nothing on the other side. Verizon coverage map claims to cover everything within hundred miles perfectly with LTE, reality is moving 100 feet can change whether you can get a signal or not.
If your house is made of radio opaque materials that maybe most of your problem. Brick, stone, concrete all seriously attenuate some radio frequencies. Metal roofing or solar pannels on the roof or foil backing insulation would also contribute to signal attenuation.
For a single town it’s cheaper to wire up a single tower, but everyone wants internet and for global coverage satellites require vastly less infrastructure. The major reasons are launch costs, small satellites, economy’s of scale, large coverage area, minimal need for spectrum, and leveraging existing networks.
First their launch costs are quite low at a small fraction of historical prices. Small satellites means they get economy of scale and fit several per launch. Being in the sky they get coverage of valleys for free, thus large coverage area means the little bandwidth is wasted as you can still communicate with satellites over the ocean, or low population areas like deserts. Spectrum, a point to point connection can reuse the same frequency while talking to every satellite in the sky. And finally it’s more than just radio masts they avoid maintaining long redundant fiber fiber connections to each mast by locating down stations in convenient locations. Also, after global coverage you get better than linear increases in bandwidth from linear increases in the number of satellites as you can focus on the most useful orbits.
Net, result it’s much cheaper to get global coverage this way than buy spectrum in every country, rent cell towers, and built and maintain fiber connections to each of them.
Many cell phone towers are connected by point to point microwave links, you don't need to necessarily interconnect them all with cables. They still need power of course & have to deal with trees and houses obstructing their fresnel zone. Low orbit satellites which are basically above most of the time have it easier in this regard.
Yeah this has nothing to do with Starlink. The Starlink satellites aren't even visible to the naked eye except for shortly after launch or right at sunrise/sunset:
> The satellites are sometimes visible in the first few minutes after sundown and before sunrise when the sun is below the horizon, but the satellites are high enough to reflect direct sunlight.
I still think that the primary problem Starlink "solves" is the regulatory capture in the US. It baffles me that laying fiber cables everywhere is so expensive/impossible that literally launching things into space is the more cost-effective solution.
Several years ago while camping up north, I swam in a lake in the middle of a perfectly clear night and could see the Milky Way like I had never seen before. With stars all around in my visual periphery, and being weightless in a star lit lake, I had the sensation of not looking up at the "dome" of stars, but standing affixed against a watery wall looking out, over, and into the depths of space in front of me. It was like watching out into space from a balcony.
It was a new perspective for me and I wondered if whales ever see the night sky like that.
Your comment reminded me of a similar experience I had almost eight years ago. I went camping in the desert with a few friends of mine, and in the evening we slept inside these caves that looked out into sky instead of into the horizon--as in the cave entrance was vertical instead of horizontal.
In the evening, from inside the caves, I laid down and looked up and felt a sensation like the one you're describing--"weightless" is definitely the right word. It felt like I was looking into infinity, a literal ocean of stars. The cave was completely pitch black except for the opening that looked out into the sky. I don't have the right words to describe it, but I felt like I was almost pleasantly "falling" into that opening and out onto the star field, despite literally laying in the dirt in the middle of cave in the middle of nowhere.
I quite literally am not smart enough to conjure up the right words for how I felt--and still feel about, all those years later--but I felt this odd comforting sensation that the universe is much larger than me and here I was just sitting in its cradle.
I have experienced a similar feeling lying quietly on a beach looking up at the stars. Your words describe it better than any other words I've ever read.
Thank you--you're too kind. Yes, this feeling is a strange one, unique and universal all at once.
I wonder why I haven't pursued it again after all these years. It would just require driving a few hours out of town, nothing too crazy. Like another commenter here mentioned, it would be good for all of us, especially we who work in front of screens all day, to do this more often.
While reading The Remembrance of Earth’s Past trilogy (Cixin Liu) I practiced looking at the sky in the way you describe, and while stargazing has felt wonderful as long as I can remember, this perspective is particularly so. My mental health has improved since moving back to a rural area where I can see the galaxy, and I doubt I’m alone in that. I hope we can all adjust to living with less light, and less energy consumption in general, for the sake of healthier lives, human and otherwise.
Some of the strongest and clearest constellations are seasonal. I have a particular fondness for Orion, a winter constellation in the northern hemisphere, and look at it often.
The first time I travelled to the southern hemisphere and looked up to the night sky, it was full of unknown structures - but I also found my old friend Orion - upside-down. I turned my head to get the familiar feeling back.
Obviously, it was not the stars but me that were upside-down - the most definite sign of Earth's shape I have ever seen. And yet, it is hard to grasp. The world looks the same, solid, flat and steady beneath me. It is rare to get a glimpse of the world's three-dimensionality. Usually we live in only 2.5d.
Spent time in the remote Australian desert for many weeks, it was the first time I realized that the Earth is the best space ship we could ever hope to have.
I felt the same type of weightlessness and experienced "the dome" for many nights on end. Every night was a wonderful gift.
Semi-related: Most humans stopped valuing the stars after mechanical clocks were invented. That led us to follow the abstract time rather than the sun, seasons and therefore the stars. That combined with cities with light pollution, makes you realize we're one of the first batches of humans with almost no contact with the stars.
I started re-valuing the stars maybe ten years ago, when I got in the habit of checking the mailbox at night when my wife got home from work.
Even though I lived in one of the worst light-polluted cities in the region, I found that if I stood in the right place, so that I didn't have a streetlight in my face — like under an eave — and I just waited, my eyes would get used to the dark and I could see maybe 10 or 15 stars. Enough to make it interesting. All it takes is a little patience.
Eventually, I started going out and getting the mail before she came home so I'd have more star time, and it wasn't too long before some of them became familiar friends, and I noticed how others changed position from week to week.
It doesn't take much effort to appreciate the stars. But it's more effort than many people are willing to expend.
Too bad they can't get funding for these kind of experiments. A two seal study with no input on how the experiment will be structured is pretty weak. Two seals in a 15 foot aquarium with a planetarium for a ceiling? Humans get larger planetariums and who knows how I choose which chair to walk toward.
City lights are something of an unavoidable problem, but the truly unforgivable scourge is all the "security" lights that electric companies promote in order to burn useless capacity in rural areas. First, the idea that anyone's security is improved by helpfully illuminating unfamiliar surroundings for intruders is risible. I can walk from one end of my farm to the other in pitch-black starless night without stumbling, because I am familiar with my own property. Someone who hasn't been there before will have to bring a light, which will betray their intrusion. (Which, whatever. If they want to take a walk at night and don't damage anything I don't really care.)
Even worse is how these "security" lights destroy one's night sight from long distance. If I'm in sight of one of my dumbass neighbors' houses, I have to be careful not to look anywhere near them, because these devices shine their awful-colored rays in all directions. I'm sure this is even more of a burden for nocturnal animals. I know it is for my livestock.
These lights operate all night long, every night. Those who consent to their installation are typically inside their houses, watching TV or sleeping. These lights' only function is to illuminate the front lawn for a couple of seconds a few times each evening when someone wonders "is the security light still on?" Anyone who needs actual illumination outside uses flashlights, headlights, etc. when they actually need the illumination.
The moon will also stop them seeing the Milky Way.
At best, they use the Milky Way on moonless, low cloud nights, the time of year when it's observable.
As a human it's incredibly interesting to know if beetles actually use the Milky Way. For AI research it is also relevant.
But we are sitting so close to stupid, there needs more proof.
It does mean the proof matters. For the occasions a beetle could see the Milky Way did it's little brain come with pre-existing programming? or can store the Milky Way's image?. Which of the two is it, or is it something else?
Unfortunately logic is it's just not true, or a boring it stores any old big blob. It would be interesting from a vision perspective, they don't need lidar or night vision better than blobs. Moonlit clouds makes far more sense, and the anti-fighting theory still works for a somewhat consistent moving grid of clouds. Maybe there are no clouds where they are.
44 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 91.5 ms ] threadThere is so much we don't know, and so much of what we do as humans is arbitrage to trade something away from someone before they know what they have. Or to sell something only accounting for one dimension of value or worth.
Then, the first time I spotted Saturn and Jupiter with my telescope in my driveway I was struck with fresh awe. I had seen them before, in larger telescopes and higher resolution, but to track it with your own, to see them and try to comprehend how big they are in order order to be seen from so far away... I still get chills.
Curvature of the Earth, buildings, mountains, hills, valleys, canyons. The way that radio waves actually move around and through an area. You can only get a tower to see so far.
https://www.verizon.com/coverage-map/ - that's their coverage map
Note that there are still a lot of uncovered areas. The cost of getting towers into those areas and providing full coverage is massive. Remember, as I said in my previous comment, it's also not just towers and antenna. You need fiber running to every single one of them.
For specific examples of areas that are not covered on the map: north west maine. Nobody lives there. There are no incorporated towns north or west of Rangley or south or west of Alagash. It is private forestry company land.
Death Valley.
A part of east texas near the LA border. I am not too familiar with this area but I believe it is part of the area called the "Big Thicket" it is very sparsely populated.
The Nevada test site, Nellis AFB, Area 51. I am sure the military has its own radio coverage here where it needs it.
Other Parts of Nevada and Eastern Oregon and Washington and North Central Idaho. These areas are sparsely inhabited deserts or mountains.
First their launch costs are quite low at a small fraction of historical prices. Small satellites means they get economy of scale and fit several per launch. Being in the sky they get coverage of valleys for free, thus large coverage area means the little bandwidth is wasted as you can still communicate with satellites over the ocean, or low population areas like deserts. Spectrum, a point to point connection can reuse the same frequency while talking to every satellite in the sky. And finally it’s more than just radio masts they avoid maintaining long redundant fiber fiber connections to each mast by locating down stations in convenient locations. Also, after global coverage you get better than linear increases in bandwidth from linear increases in the number of satellites as you can focus on the most useful orbits.
Net, result it’s much cheaper to get global coverage this way than buy spectrum in every country, rent cell towers, and built and maintain fiber connections to each of them.
Actually, I got around the paywall[0] and ctrl+f starlink returns 0 results.
[0] https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/3wNvrw
> The satellites are sometimes visible in the first few minutes after sundown and before sunrise when the sun is below the horizon, but the satellites are high enough to reflect direct sunlight.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/spacex-ufo-starlink...
It was a new perspective for me and I wondered if whales ever see the night sky like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59hhDE9ObxY
Your comment reminded me of a similar experience I had almost eight years ago. I went camping in the desert with a few friends of mine, and in the evening we slept inside these caves that looked out into sky instead of into the horizon--as in the cave entrance was vertical instead of horizontal.
In the evening, from inside the caves, I laid down and looked up and felt a sensation like the one you're describing--"weightless" is definitely the right word. It felt like I was looking into infinity, a literal ocean of stars. The cave was completely pitch black except for the opening that looked out into the sky. I don't have the right words to describe it, but I felt like I was almost pleasantly "falling" into that opening and out onto the star field, despite literally laying in the dirt in the middle of cave in the middle of nowhere.
I quite literally am not smart enough to conjure up the right words for how I felt--and still feel about, all those years later--but I felt this odd comforting sensation that the universe is much larger than me and here I was just sitting in its cradle.
I wonder why I haven't pursued it again after all these years. It would just require driving a few hours out of town, nothing too crazy. Like another commenter here mentioned, it would be good for all of us, especially we who work in front of screens all day, to do this more often.
EDIT: Your username is excellent haha.
The first time I travelled to the southern hemisphere and looked up to the night sky, it was full of unknown structures - but I also found my old friend Orion - upside-down. I turned my head to get the familiar feeling back.
Obviously, it was not the stars but me that were upside-down - the most definite sign of Earth's shape I have ever seen. And yet, it is hard to grasp. The world looks the same, solid, flat and steady beneath me. It is rare to get a glimpse of the world's three-dimensionality. Usually we live in only 2.5d.
Spent time in the remote Australian desert for many weeks, it was the first time I realized that the Earth is the best space ship we could ever hope to have.
I felt the same type of weightlessness and experienced "the dome" for many nights on end. Every night was a wonderful gift.
Even though I lived in one of the worst light-polluted cities in the region, I found that if I stood in the right place, so that I didn't have a streetlight in my face — like under an eave — and I just waited, my eyes would get used to the dark and I could see maybe 10 or 15 stars. Enough to make it interesting. All it takes is a little patience.
Eventually, I started going out and getting the mail before she came home so I'd have more star time, and it wasn't too long before some of them became familiar friends, and I noticed how others changed position from week to week.
It doesn't take much effort to appreciate the stars. But it's more effort than many people are willing to expend.
This is the saddest thing on this thread.
Even worse is how these "security" lights destroy one's night sight from long distance. If I'm in sight of one of my dumbass neighbors' houses, I have to be careful not to look anywhere near them, because these devices shine their awful-colored rays in all directions. I'm sure this is even more of a burden for nocturnal animals. I know it is for my livestock.
These lights operate all night long, every night. Those who consent to their installation are typically inside their houses, watching TV or sleeping. These lights' only function is to illuminate the front lawn for a couple of seconds a few times each evening when someone wonders "is the security light still on?" Anyone who needs actual illumination outside uses flashlights, headlights, etc. when they actually need the illumination.
The moon will also stop them seeing the Milky Way.
At best, they use the Milky Way on moonless, low cloud nights, the time of year when it's observable.
As a human it's incredibly interesting to know if beetles actually use the Milky Way. For AI research it is also relevant.
But we are sitting so close to stupid, there needs more proof.
It does mean the proof matters. For the occasions a beetle could see the Milky Way did it's little brain come with pre-existing programming? or can store the Milky Way's image?. Which of the two is it, or is it something else?
Unfortunately logic is it's just not true, or a boring it stores any old big blob. It would be interesting from a vision perspective, they don't need lidar or night vision better than blobs. Moonlit clouds makes far more sense, and the anti-fighting theory still works for a somewhat consistent moving grid of clouds. Maybe there are no clouds where they are.
Like we're supposed to have hope for the future, but shit like this makes that increasingly difficult.