4 ms·

That's like a trade off between 0.000001% chance that the satellite would block some interesting important unique event, against 100% chance of stopping the wor

• Obi_Juan_Kenobi 7y ago
  So, realistically, it's going to mean that ground-based telescopes become less productive. Some won't be affected much at all (narrow FoV), while others may have to fundamentally shift how they operate (wide FoV). More exposures will need to be made to overwrite any satellites that pass through the field. This is already done due to existing satellites, so it's simply a question of rates. The radio astronomy issue is potentially more significant, but then I don't understand why these issues weren't raised when the spectrum was being allocated.
  • gpm 7y ago
    This only doubles the number of satellites iirc, I doubt it will mean many have to fundamentally shift how they operate.
  • trickstra 7y ago
    > why these issues weren't raised when the spectrum was being allocated Because they are bogus. This is riding on a wave of populism, at a time when journalists woke up to an "Elon's train" and twitter was buzzing with many people who saw a satellite with their naked eye for their first time. Actual professional astronomers would either realize this is not such a big problem, or would raise the issues during the spectrum allocation, or would raise issues during the whole time SpaceX was showing animations of the finished constellation to all their fans etc etc... there was a lot of time, no way somebody whose project depended on free skies wouldn't be prepared.
• odiroot 7y ago
  NIMBYism has reached the orbit.