this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2026
523 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

83069 readers
3459 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
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 15 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I was a space kid, followed every space shot since 1965, was a super fan of Apollo 11, I had a subscription to Nat Geo growing up, just for the Space photos.

So I can't believe I'm saying this: Maybe we've gone far enough for now, and we should have a moratorium on space for the next 50 years.

We should concentrate on Earth for awhile, dontcha think?

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I dunno, every engineer not working on space almost certainly ends up optimizing some sort of ad delivery system. The tech industry is almost completely enshittified.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I was thinking more like Climate Change and Infrastructure and whatnot and suchlike.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

That’s great, but that comes from funding those things, not shutting down a different industry. It’d be better to shut down non-productive industries like bombing brown kids in the Middle East.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

Right. Elon hires people on the basis they'll be making Mars travel possible, but that Starship is really for dumping metal all over the night sky.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

Elon Musk is such a goddamned literal supervillain that he managed to make the theme of Firefly wrong.

Apparently, they can take the sky from you.

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 13 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Ads on the fucking moon are going to do it for me.

[–] clif@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

That's where you draw the line?

(Also, say hi to your chickens for me)

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

Well, at least we'll always have Sinatra.

theoretically

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 22 points 5 hours ago

Billionaires don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves, not even their kids. And, we've all agreed to let billionaires run the world, it seems.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Doubtful.

This is just a way for SpaceX to try further integrate itself into the spheres of government and public funding, and thus, make it easier to justify government bailouts.

[–] MuteDog@lemmy.world 33 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It's either data centres in space or giant mirrors to reflect sunlight.

Presumably his engineers have explained this to him but he didn't listen

[–] fishy@lemmy.today 5 points 3 hours ago

To cool the iss they're exchanging heat into water pumping to ammonia exchangers then radiated through infrared. The radiators for a space data center would need to be prohibitively massive as I understand it.

[–] Innerworld@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago
[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (3 children)

While this very well might fuck up land-based stuff looking at space, people are often overlooking what this would mean to stellar photography from space.

If they can truly launch these million data center sats profitably, that means starship works. That means payload to space is relatively cheap.

That means we could also send large quantities of large telescopes into space on the cheap, and avoid the crazy expensive cant fail telescopes because the cost to get them up there isnt prohibitive and a technical failure in the telescope isnt a disaster.

Things very well might change, but it will also open up possibilities in the same area.

[–] pigup@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

Elon will not make it cheap. Falcon 9 prices keep rising. He's an exploiter and will enshitify his service once enough people are hooked on it.

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

It might be super cheap in the future to launch them but it will be into a field of fast moving garbage. The cost effectiveness of throwing more and more telescope up into space to try and get pictures before they get knocked out by the debris of the past will be a losing proposition.

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

Nah, everything at super low orbits like these constellations decay quite quickly. Even in cases of total loss of all satellites (eg Kessler Cascade), they would all reenter within a couple years.

You could relatively easily just put your space telescopes above that orbit and they’d be just fine.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Theoretically, even if we assume SpaceX is overshooting, that's an interesting thought:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-cost-of-space-flight/

launch cost chart

In practice? I'm more concerned about interest in funding astronomy in the first place.

That, and big fat telescopes are fundamentally expensive. And (at least for the optical variety) "swarming" them with a bunch of cheaper units isn't as effective as building a big one.

I'd love to be wrong though. There are some interesting papers on swarms of optical telescopes for a larger effective aperture, but I'm not qualified to assess them.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Oh, I wasn't thinking swarms the same way these million sats will be, I was thinking just using the whole payload diameter of around 9m for the lens/mirror (minus any housing) but they could potentially just buy the whole starship and be cheaper than past options and that is the housing.

James Webb cost billions because of it's complexity and launch costs, none of which is needed when there's 9meters to work with without any complexity at all.

If you wanted, you could make a super crazy expensive satellite that worked just like James Webb and have a massive mirror as well, but that's a bit different than my large quantity of cheaper telecopes in space. I wonder how big you could get the mirror if you did it James Webb style in starship.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I wonder how big you could get the mirror if you did it James Webb style in starship.

Presumably 7x ~8m hexagons folded up?

That is a good point though. And if one were to design a "budget" 9m space telescope, they could amortize the R&D dramatically by launching the same design many times, perhaps with different sensors for different purposes? Amortization is why the Falcon Heavy and such are so cheap, and why the Space Shuttle and JWST are obscenely expensive.

Okay, you've sold me. I hope this does happen.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Ya, that would get costs down further if they were able to amortize it over a larger quantity.

We could also get them pretty far out with starship refuelling, but refuelling a starship back to full capacity to then go somewhere would raise the cost a lot. But imagine a 7x 8m folded hexagon one sent out into deep space. That would be super expensive though, we wouldn't get a lot of those haha.

This is all a massive big IF though. Starship being fully reusable like they think is still very far from a given, so none of this might come true in our lifetimes.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

Yeah. I prefer the idea of a bunch of 9-meters unless they can really perfect a cheap folding mirror to mass produce.

A small upper stage, an ion drive or something could get them to deep space. It's not worth flying a whole Starship out there and burning more fuel to get it back; the return trip only makes sense for LEO.

[–] vane@lemmy.world 34 points 7 hours ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chahn.chris@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago

Who needs the night sky when you can download the old night sky via satellite internet with gig speed downloads in vr? /s

[–] redsand@infosec.pub 23 points 7 hours ago
[–] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

everything the tech bros touch, dies

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 11 points 6 hours ago

He never respected his fellow man, why start now?

[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 24 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 22 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›