• 1 Post
  • 792 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 6th, 2023

help-circle


  • Yeah, that’s cool.

    Well I guess my opinion is that it’s essentially never “legitimate” to be the aggressor. Determining which party is the aggressor can sometimes be complicated, but it often boils down to this: which party is crossing the border?

    In this case, I’m sure many would say that Iran took the first aggressive action by pursuing a nuclear program, but I have a few issues with that. First, Israel already has nuclear weapons, so surely that is an earlier provocation. Secondly, Iran still isn’t crossing the border, Israel was first to pull the trigger, and they pulled a lot of triggers (in Iranian territory). And finally, Israel and Iran have been in the process of forging nuclear treaties many times now, and nearly every time Israel has sabotaged the talks with provocative, often military actions, or they simply left the table - it seems clear to me that Israel does not want a nuclear deal, they will not accept any kind of compromise.



  • I’ve heard there’s been some real breakthroughs in perovskite for solar cells in just the last few years. As you said, chemical instability is supposed to be their primary weakness, but my understanding is that progress has been made in finding the perfect chemical makeup for the “sandwiching” materials between layers of perovskite. I’m pretty sure that “perfect” chemical makeup is the proprietary trade secret variety, so I don’t really know much more about it.

    And admittedly, I’ve never been in the field of materials science, so you’re much more of an expert in this area. But I’ve been following a lot of green energy news, and I know promising progress is actively being made on perovskite.








  • Yeah, it’s a messed up position. It’s made more complicated by then being half right. People do often like having fewer choices. Making a streamlined OS that doesn’t allow them access to the kernel or crucial components, that they literally can’t break by accident, that is indeed an appealing feature to many. But it’s not appealing because they’re stupid, it’s appealing they’re rational.

    This has always been Apple’s method, make everything intuitive, easy to use for anyone and their mother. And a big part of that is removing all the extra clutter from the interface, all the options users would rarely if ever use. This is also the contentious part, removing the advanced options that power users might want access to.

    But at least initially, they understood that the reason for doing all this, their goal, was to make their products better. These days it seems like they’re less clear on that goal. The idea that they’re “dumbing down” their products and controlling everything because their users are too stupid, this is a new attitude, and it shows a misunderstanding of the principals their company was built on. Apple was only successful because they made very good products which were comfortable to use. They certainly never won popularity through competitive pricing or having the most powerful machines…

    Personally, I think it’s a foolish move to be this controlling over their iOS ecosystem. This is really making the product inferior. Sideloading apps will not destroy their walled garden, it just gives power users the options they want. Apple should be afraid of losing more market share, they don’t have all that much to lose…




  • Lowering the orbit takes energy, too, unless you’re relying solely on atmospheric drag.

    Sure, but you can safely deorbit something from Leo with like 100 m/s of Delta v, you just need to dip into the atmosphere and then drag does the rest. Getting something to a sufficiently high graveyard orbit is more like 2000 Dv split between two burns. You’d need to stay with the trash for half an orbit and then do the second half of your burn, and then presumably you’d need to travel back to your original point, costing another 2000 Dv.

    All together, going up could take 40x more propellant than going down.


  • If they can make progress on that kind of timeline, why wouldn’t someone else be able to?

    That’s a fair point. Keep in mind though, it takes a while to get a whole constellation up in orbit and get all the kinks worked out, Starlink was first usable in 2020. So in total it took them in the area of 14 years from start to finish. It’s also worth noting, that nobody in the space industry has really ever been able to move as fast as spaceX, they’re something of an anomaly, not the norm.

    So could a new company do it in 14 years? Yeah, that’s definitely possible. It could happen by 2039, but I wouldn’t put money on it. 25 years seems more likely.



  • That’s a fair point. The alternative is taking things up to a “graveyard orbit” somewhere between LEO and GSO, to a particularly unpopular altitude, where nobody’s fighting for real estate. Satellites can sit there indefinitely, you could even clump them up in a big ball, the tiny pull of gravity they have is actually enough to keep them bunched together.

    The only problem with that plan is that it takes a lot of energy to raise an orbit that much, I’m not sure how to make that feasible.


  • Yeah, it’s a bad situation. I’m against monopolies, but I also see how filling the sky with redundant satellites is a terrible plan, so I don’t like the idea of lots of competition either.

    I think low orbit satellite communications is a pretty awesome concept. It has the potential to become like a second Internet backbone, but a backbone that can bring data directly to users without the additional router hops that local ISPs introduce. On paper, it’s amazingly efficient and can distribute service to all of the world… But in practice the business and management side is deeply problematic. One company should absolutely not be in charge of global Internet service. And one country would not be any better.

    The only solution I can see is to make it safe and feasible to have way more satellites operating in low earth orbit. I’m really not sure what that solution might look like…

    Here’s an off-the-cuff idea though: One solution could be an extremely robust low earth orbit maintenance and “pruning” system. All satellites would need to be monitored by third parties. And those third parties would need the authority and ability to quickly deorbit (prune) any satellite that deviates from its exact expected orbit. If satellites can ensure no deviation from their path and can safely maneuver to avoid collisions, it could be possible for many more satellites to safely share an orbital altitude.