> the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons
I'm not entirely sure that doubts about handing fistfuls of cash to a corporation headed by an increasingly politically extreme CEO whose 2nd generation satellites are leaking so much radio energy that radio astronomy in that band of the spectrum looks doomed is "petty".
The persecution of Elon Musk is entirely political, and he is not "extreme" just for disagreeing with the entire media/corporate/state establishment and supporting basic human rights like freedom of expression as enshrined in the FIRST Amendment of the US Constitution. The persecution has nothing to do with the costs or merits of his products, which vary but are generally the best in class or very competitive. He was the darling of the libs until he dared to point out the insanity of their recent policies.
If you watch the video, you'll see they replaced Starlink with a solution that cost 10x as much. I'm sure whatever minor inconvenience comes to those scientists can be fixed somehow. We have far bigger things to worry about in any case.
> I'm sure whatever minor inconvenience comes to those scientists can be fixed somehow.
\1. It's not a "minor inconvenience" at all.
\2. Problem started with Starlink 1.0. The fix was Musk promising better shielding and attention to leaks in Version 2.0 and to turn off Starllink sats over Murchison Radio Quiet Area etc.
\3. Starlink V2.0 has 30x more noise (Musk lied | didn't deliver) and remains noisy over quiet areas (Musk lied | didn't deliver).
> The persecution of Elon Musk is entirely political
What's your solution? This kind of satellite system is going to get built and improved over time regardless of what you think of it.
>It's more due to Musk lying and not delivering.
No, it's not. I think you know it too. Biden and a bunch of EU politicians have literally threatened Elon over Twitter, as recently as last month. Everyone was cool with his hype game until they cashed out and/or discovered that Elon has the views of a liberal from about 2010.
Let's look at Elon's accomplishments objectively. He oversaw a new and inexpensive reusable rocket program, cutting-edge electric cars which libs begged for, solar systems for houses, and satellite internet. Not to mention his original online payment system in the early days. All of those projects are very competitive and widely used. Did he promise more? Sure, he did. But he also delivered more than any of the naysayers. I have some sympathy for a man trying to do what was considered impossible, like developing autonomous taxis.
The 2nd generation of starlink satellites is worse than the first one: they leak radio spectrum energy at a massively higher level than the 1st generation.
Why have sympathy for anyone trying to do something stupid? Why do we need autonomous taxis? What problem is this solving, other than helping the already richer get a bit richer?
IMO the Starlink interference problem is being overblown to spite Elon for political reasons. In any case, satellites have long existed and other countries are going to build their own version of Starlink with the same problems. If they don't have the same problems then presumably Starlink will learn from them. There are other satellites made to observe stuff from space, and maybe the new SpaceX rockets will facilitate radioastronomy stations built on the dark side of the moon (if that's even important enough to build).
I actually don't want autonomous taxis or autonomous vehicles in general but some people do. When new technology is developed, usually most people experience benefits. It makes sense for some of the spoils to go to investors. Stop hating on people who make money. They are what funds everyone's pensions after all.
> Stop hating on people who make money. They are what funds everyone's pensions after all.
I was the 2nd employee at Amazon. It's not like I hate people who make money. And people making money is not what funds everyone's pensions, other than in some glib 8th grade sort of way.
Do feel free to continue on with your defense of incredibly rich people who don't actually give a damn about any of the things you do and do not need your assistance.
> IMO the Starlink interference problem is being overblown to spite Elon for political reasons.
That's your opinion. It's wrong.
There is a list of papers as long as an arm going back to the start of Starlink that measure the noise spectrum and point out exactly why it's a real problem for pre existing programs that have had billions invested in new science programs.
There are proposed work arounds which have been ignored.
Unless you are actively working on this issue I will consider your opinion no more valid than mine. There may be papers about the issue but that does not in itself prove how bad the issue is. I don't have time to find and read "a list of papers as long as an arm" anyway and I would bet good money that you didn't read them either.
>There are proposed work arounds which have been ignored.
Do you know if there is a legitimate technical reason why those might not have been implemented? Will any of those billions going to radio astronomy go toward reengineering the technical marvel that is Starlink? Doesn't the FCC inspect and approve all of our privately-owned satellites?
I'm not an astronomer or a rocket scientist but it seems to me that emitting continuous "noise" aka a radio signal is fundamental to the operation of satellite internet on such a scale. You don't have to respond with another pompous "Nah uh" because I don't care anymore.
> What's your solution? This kind of satellite system is going to get built and improved over time regardless of what you think of it.
So you've reversed your " opinion " and tacitly admitted it's more than a a minor inconvenience then?
As I outlined above the solution proposed was that the Ver 2.0 sats be better shielded and set to turn off over Radio Quiet Zones such as the Murchison as discussed and agreed to when this was raised some years back.
>> It's more due to Musk lying and not delivering.
> No, it's not.
Yes. It is. At least so far as the radio telescope community and this Starlink issue is concerned. He made promises and didn't keep them.
> Biden and a bunch of EU politicians ...
Has nothing to do with Starlink noise.
> Let's look at Elon's accomplishments objectively.
Sure. He promised to fix Starlink noise. He did not. He delivered a Ver 2.0 that's noisier than the the first.
He promised Full Self Driving cars "next year" for a decade. Still hasn't happened.
>So you've reversed your " opinion " and tacitly admitted it's more than a a minor inconvenience then?
No I didn't. I heard about some noise a long time ago and it did not sound like a devastating development. I am merely putting forward a conditional argument: If the noise is a problem, then the problem will likely affect other satellites which are already being built. In any case I expect the problem to be solved.
>Yes. It is. At least so far as the radio telescope community and this Starlink issue is concerned. He made promises and didn't keep them.
I was not aware of these promises. Without context I cannot say whether he had a legitimate reason to not implement that proposed solution. Can you at least admit there might be a technical reason for it to not be done?
>he promised[...]
He does tend to promise more than he delivers but nobody has delivered better satellite internet, EVs, or autonomous driving to the public. Your gripes are extremely uncharitable.
Again I must point out that Elon's habit of overhyping things was well-tolerated by all for years, until he revealed views slightly to the right of the most extreme leftists and questioned their pet issues. Then the media and all liberals acted like he's the devil. I have a coworker who has been affected by this propaganda campaign. He is extremely environmentally conscious, yet refuses to buy anything from an Elon company. He will not buy a Tesla despite the fact they are practically the best and most proven EVs on the market. Instead he bought a Leaf or something, which is objectively worse than a Tesla. This mentality is totally irrational and I would say un-American. But this bad attitude is common, unfortunately.
"Nobody has delivered better ...." is not a reason to be less negative towards Musk. Because somebody manages to do a quality-but-fundamentally-problematic job on satellite internet, a generally OK but quality-plagued job on EVs and a basically useless job on autonomous driving that nobody wanted does not mean they are exempt from criticism or griping.
It is extremely American to use commerce for political ends.
Boycotting people with political views you find problematic is as American as apple pie (and actually, maybe more so). The right and the left do it, and have done for ages.
His hype was well-tolerated by the people you read and listen to, perhaps, but in the stuff I read he's been criticized for more than a decade for his empty bullshit. Tesla also lots of issues with their cars, more than most other EV makes, but it is true that they do have more time in the market and have done some cool stuff.
I'm not entirely sure that doubts about handing fistfuls of cash to a corporation headed by an increasingly politically extreme CEO whose 2nd generation satellites are leaking so much radio energy that radio astronomy in that band of the spectrum looks doomed is "petty".