The Bizarre Truth About Starlink | Unveiled

<h4>The Bizarre Truth About Starlink</h4>

Billed as the future of the communication industry, satellite broadband has grown since its introduction in the 1990s. With Elon Musk’s innovations in the field, in particular, it’s fast becoming more affordable and accessible. But could it also be doing more harm than good?

This is Unveiled, and today we’re taking a closer look at the bizarre (and controversial) truth about Starlink.

In its early days, satellite internet was rarely found and deeply expensive. Plus, back then - in the 1990s when the internet (in general) was only just beginning to take off - it certainly wasn’t necessary for everybody to have a computer or to be online. Fast forward to today, and a lot has changed. If you don’t have internet access, you’re at a major disadvantage in both your social and working life. Computer literacy has become massively important. Internet connections govern so much of what we do - including enabling you to watch this video right now.

There’s now one big and futuristic way to keep up with the times, though: satellite broadband. In many ways, it beats most of everything else we have. It uses satellites to relay information around, so it isn’t limited by cables, wires, or even cell towers. Through satellite internet, you can get much faster (and more reliable) connections on average. And then, the more it’s developed, the cheaper it’s sure to get, as well. It’s still costly today, but it’s also something that increasing numbers CAN purchase… if required or desired. 

As of early 2023, more than fifty countries have access to Starlink specifically - the satellite provider fronted by Elon Musk - including the US, Canada, the UK, and Japan. Starlink only became available to commercial customers in 2021, but it has already grown into a pretty big deal, becoming a now popular – if slightly more expensive – alternative to old school, solid cables. Of course, there is more to it than it simply being the latest “must have” thing. Starlink (and satellite internet in general) does theoretically come with far fewer glitches, blackouts, or even days when the internet is just slow. That’s because the infrastructure is flexible, with satellites high above communicating with (and covering for) one another, should any kind of fault develop. Satellite setups promise a much more robust internet across rural areas, too, and for people who travel a lot, by air or even by sea – the coverage is essentially (potentially) total, all over the world map. So, what’s the catch? From a purely technical point of view, Starlink (and the like) appear to have it all… and yet the emergence of satellite internet isn’t without controversy.

Many scientists object not only to Starlink, but to satellite internet as a whole. Their major criticism relates to how the satellite “constellations” at the heart of this tech - the connected units that are growing at a pace - are having an adverse effect on astronomy. In short, the satellites get in the way of astronomical study. Importantly, this isn’t a new problem, and really it’s an issue with all satellites from all companies… but satellite internet is accelerating it, and fast. Most traditional space agencies, for example, launch far fewer satellites than private companies do… but, we know that space is now an ever-growing field for private enterprise. Which means it’s getting more and more populated with satellites. So, where do we stand? 

According to data compiled by DEWESoft, In September 2021 the total number of active satellites orbiting Earth was around 4,550. That number will by now have grown… but the split, even then, made for interesting reading, because more than a third of those 4,550 belonged just to SpaceX and, subsequently, to Starlink. At the time, that was 1,655 total SpaceX satellites operating… versus, say, NASA, which had only 60. In fact, the top three biggest satellite operators were all private companies, with China’s Ministry of National Defense ranking as the top non-private firm, but still with just 129 satellites - a tiny number compared to the might of Musk. Just a year on, in 2022, and the SpaceX fleet had swelled again, counting more than 3,500 total satellites within its ranks. In general, this means that the vast majority of active, artificial objects in Earth’s atmosphere aren’t simply satellites anymore… they’re satellites that specifically belong to Starlink’s network, with dozens more going up with almost every single rocket launch.

Despite Starlink satellites being relatively small and Earth’s atmosphere being huge, the volume of satellites even back in 2020 – BEFORE there were thousands more added – was bad enough that various reports were issued into the effects it was already having on astronomy - including by the IAU, the International Astronomical Union. And, today, we know that the effects were (and are) severe. This growing, seeming army of satellites, some of which are densely packed together, has proven to massively limit what astronomers can (and can’t) see in the night sky. While it’s also true we have some telescopes that are way out in space - like the James Webb - and that those aren’t affected so much… there are still plenty of telescopes on the ground that very much DO still need to see what’s happening above. We’re talking an entire industry’s worth of cutting edge technology that’s now hampered by the satellites that fly between it and the celestial objects that it’s trying to view. Images of space, when taken from the ground, are coming out full or partly ruined. Efforts to track the skies above are continually smeared and interrupted, too. Yes, the incredible images from the Webb have taken the headlines in recent times… but there are only so many flagship missions like that that Earth can afford. Large ground telescopes are generally cheaper, easier, and quicker to build than space telescopes are, and they don’t require an arduous launch. Increasingly, it is amounting to a cosmological clash of ideas, and a potential scientific crisis.

This tension between astronomers and satellite launchers of any kind, again, isn’t new. It’s existed for decades, but it’s only in recent years that a kind of tipping point has loomed. For example, in 2019, there was an incident where scientists using an observatory in Chile witnessed no fewer than nineteen Starlink satellites pass in front of its telescope, once more destroying images of the galaxies they were trying to study. And, often, the capturing of these images is a rare, once-in-a-lifetime moment… so it’s not as though astronomers can just reset, wait for the growing cloud of tech to pass, and go again. The more satellites that are deployed, the worse the problem gets, and with SpaceX and Starlink sending up more than anyone else… it’s all eyes on them.

Finally, there’s the growing issue of dead satellites, too. These machines aren’t immortal; they eventually glitch, die or shut down as all electronics do. However, there isn’t yet a way to retrieve expired satellites from the atmosphere, if they don’t just fall back down to Earth of their own accord. There are, then, tens of thousands of pieces of “space junk” orbiting Earth right now, with almost all of it being artificial and left behind by rockets, missiles, shuttles, space stations, and yes, satellites - including as a result of satellite collisions, which are predicted to become more common, again, as their numbers increase. It’s another major headache for astronomy, but also for space travel. Some bits of debris, while small, are flying around Earth at over 17,000 miles per hour. Consider that a speeding bullet travels, on average, at only 1,800 miles per hour, and you see how debris could easily cause untold damage. At present, the International Space Station is primed to perform evasive maneuvers if needed, and the debris is tracked as best we can… but how long can we keep it up for if the space junk continues to amass? How long before satellite tech inflicts damage onto itself, or before an astronaut’s life is put at risk?

Add into the equation the pollution of the launches to get these machines airbourne, and the arguments against rumble on. Of course, every rocket launch generates massive amounts of pollution, but critics argue that it’s perhaps harder to justify this environmental damage when the motivation is for a private company to profit, rather than for a public space agency to reach the bleeding edge of science. 

Arguably, there are other ways to solve the problem of internet access - including increased cable and cell towers. Those towers might be an eyesore, but are they more or less so than the shiny blanket of satellite tech that’s now being built above us? It’s an emerging debate, but an important one. For those who rally against - including astronomers - one of the most stressful aspects of it is that, again, there’s no current way to remove satellites from orbit, even if we wanted to. The launches continue, but there’s no real option to rein them back in. 

For all its promises and innovation… that’s why this particular route for technology could still be a very big problem, and especially for astronomers. And that’s the bizarre (and controversial) truth about Starlink.