5 ms·

Or make the panels much thinner but also much bigger so we can save on street lighting; astronomers will want to use orbital telescopes anyway.

• anoncake 7y ago
  Even if astronomers wanted to, the cost of replacing all terrestrial optical telescopes by orbital ones would be astronomical. Especially if you include amateurs. Stargazing wouldn't be a thing anymore. And illuminating all of earth? I don't want to imagine the damage that would cause to ecosystems. It would completely take away peoples' choice not to live in a place with street lighting, or even to have a vacation in such a place. Street lighting is bad enough for peoples' circadian rhythms as is.
  • matz1 7y ago
    The world's always changing, they just have to adapt.
    • manicdee 7y ago
      Good luck living in a world without pollinators or insectivores.
      • chr1 7y ago
        That's a bit exaggerated, if illumination could kill all insects, there would not be any insects in arctic, which is false.
        • manicdee 7y ago
          How many do you need to lose for the ecosystem to collapse? Not all, and probably as little as one or two species.
  • Tepix 7y ago
    Think about how many satellites that would require. 12,000 satellites are a joke.
• dylan604 7y ago
  > astronomers will want to use orbital telescopes anyway. Not necessarily. With Adaptive Optics, ground based telescopes are getting incredible results. Also, they can build much larger primary mirrors on the ground than what can be lofted into space. Ground based telescopes also have the ability to be updated/upgraded/fixed/etc.