6 ms·

I understand that the astronomers are disappointed, but isn’t that because the period we are in right now is immediately before it becomes 10x cheaper to launch

I understand that the astronomers are disappointed, but isn’t that because the period we are in right now is immediately before it becomes 10x cheaper to launch telescopes into space? Won’t it be so much better to observe directly from space as opposed to from the earth? Can anyone comment on this?

rimliu 7y ago
Observations are being ruined now. Those cheap space telescopes will be available when ecactly? Is there even any project in the works besides JWT? Projects like these take a lot of time.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  Improve observation data post processing. Lasers are used as artificial stars [1] to subtract atmospheric distortion, use stacking [2] to remove StarLink tracks. Those observations aren't being "ruined", they simply have some noise to remove. Long term, we should be lifting observatories (both optical and RF) into orbit, Lagrange points, or the Moon. Observing from the ground sucks comparatively, and there's a lot of space out there. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guide_star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guide_star [2] https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foundations-richard-wright/satellites-begone-how-to-remove-satellite-trails-from-your-astrophotography/ https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foun... (Satellites, Begone! Remove Trails from Your Astrophotography)
  - jsweojtj 7y ago
    That might work for imaging, but what's your fix for spectroscopy?
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      Optical, RF, or Xray?
      - jsweojtj 7y ago
        Let's start with optical.
- peterwoerner 7y ago
  Yes WFIRST[0] is currently in the works. JPLRMA[1] is investigating low cost mirror for space observation although they are primarily focused on the outer planets of our solar system. [0]https://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ https://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [1]https://www.nap.edu/resource/13117/App https://www.nap.edu/resource/13117/App G 19_Enceladus-RMA.pdf
lidHanteyk 7y ago
On one hand, yes, you're entirely right about the eventual outcome, but on the other hand, let's get there gracefully. The article describes an event akin to commercial light pollution or commercial aviation, with the similar cause of private industry charging ahead of regulation and standards. It could be that the only solution is to quickly act to regulate space more completely, but we don't have a healthy international political climate for such regulation right now. Also, in terms of quality of evidence, there is sadly a relatively strong pseudoscientific strain of thought that denies any astronomy done from space. If we stop taking high-quality photos from the surface of the Earth using relatively mundane methods, then the flat-Earthers win. Finally, what if Kessler Syndrome sets in? In that case, it would not be cheaper to launch a telescope into space, even if the telescope is destined for a relatively distant place like a Lagrange point, since it first must run a gauntlet of debris. Meanwhile, observations from the ground would certainly be twinklier and noisier but not especially more expensive.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  > On one hand, yes, you're entirely right about the eventual outcome, but on the other hand, let's get there gracefully. The problem with a "get there gradually" approach (at least as I understand it, and I may not have understood you correctly) is that it pretty much precludes a useful LEO constellation. A LEO constellation is not really useful unless it has a significant number of satellites. Putting up 1% of the satellites doesn't really get you 1% of the functionality of the system. There's a minimum threshold you have to hit for the system to really be viable at all. Which means at _some_ point (if we have LEO constellations at all) we're going to have to really rapidly go from very few LEO satellites to a large number.
- Miraste 7y ago
  > in terms of quality of evidence, there is sadly a relatively strong pseudoscientific strain of thought that denies any astronomy done from space. If we stop taking high-quality photos from the surface of the Earth using relatively mundane methods, then the flat-Earthers win. This isn't a real problem with the quality of the photos. Such people should be kept out of power and otherwise ignored. > what if Kessler Syndrome sets in? Starlink can't result in Kessler Syndrome. The time it takes orbits to decay from that altitude is measured in single-digit years.
andyljones 7y ago
Not since the advent of modern adaptive optics[1]. Ground-based telescopes now outperform space telescopes in the visible spectrum[2]. For as long as the cost per kilo to orbit is higher than the cost per kilo to the Atacama desert, ground-based astronomy is going to be superior. The other great advantage of ground-based telescopes is that _they're easy to fix and improve_. The iteration loop is that you walk into the dome and you fiddle with things. You don't need multiple years of planning to polish a mirror. There's an excellent Twitter thread on this issue here[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics [2] https://astronomynow.com/2018/07/19/adaptive-optics-tomography-provides-hubble-class-images/ https://astronomynow.com/2018/07/19/adaptive-optics-tomograp... [3] https://twitter.com/cynosurae/status/1196567663977230336 https://twitter.com/cynosurae/status/1196567663977230336
- semiotagonal 7y ago
  Perhaps a deal could be worked out where the satellite companies also have to launch Atacama-scale telescopes, where Musk et al have to pay for the difference in cost between Atacama and orbit.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    Telescopes are pretty big. It would take 5-10 Falcon 9 launches to put something with that mass into orbit (although in space you could probably have a lighter mechanism for orienting el/az). The telescope's mirror is also too big to physically fit into the F9's fairing. Once you get it there, you need to assemble it and keep it running. Maintenance is a real doozy— building a telescope on Earth is expensive. Building a telescope in space is even harder, since it won't be regularly serviced and you have to overengineer it. A typical space telescope still costs an order of magnitude more than a recordbreakingly expensive earth-based one.
    - DennisP 7y ago
      Yes but the point of Starlink is to fund Starship, which is a lot bigger than Falcon 9. Its fairing is 9 meters in diameter[0], large enough for all but the top six land-based telescopes.[1] Its payload is 100+ tonnes, five times larger than Falcon 9's. Starship is also a lot cheaper per kilogram of payload; at scale, as low as $20/kg. Cheap launch also makes your satellites cheaper to build, since it's less of a disaster if you have to replace them. Musk has already floated the idea of building a second-generation Starship with an 18-meter fairing.[2] [0] https://www.spacex.com/starship https://www.spacex.com/starship [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflec... [2] https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-the-next-generation/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-the-next...
daveslash 7y ago
I can't comment on that specifically (telescopes in orbit, I invite others to). My two cents though are this: I frequently go on multi-day backpacking trips just to get away from it all. I can get so far out when the only human-made anything that I see are the occasional aircraft and the occasional satellite. It's a great disconnect -- I can pretend that the modern world doesn't exist. It would be a great disappointment to me if the evening/morning sky were to become so populated that there were constant reminders of the modern & interconnected world. I would be resentful of whoever ruined that for me, everyone else, and generations to come.
- sbierwagen 7y ago
  Sucks to be you, then.
- hugs 7y ago
  On these trips, do you bring an emergency radio or GPS?
  - daveslash 7y ago
    Typically, no, but sometimes yes . It depends on how well I know the area (if at all), how far from the road, how many people are coming with, etc...I have a Yaseu FT-60, but (a) Don't have HAM license and (b) It's too heavy. I never take a GPS map, but sometimes I take an emergency GPS emergency locator (e.g. SPOT).
- Miraste 7y ago
  You won't be able to see these once they are at operational orbit unless you use a telescope. And, as the article says, future launches will be nonreflective.
  - daveslash 7y ago
    That is encouraging. Thank you.
cstross 7y ago
How much do you think all the sunk infrastructure costs of existing telescopes cost, and how many years did it take to build them? The bigger telescopes today have primary reflectors that are vastly bigger than the James Webb Space Telescope: for example the Large Binocular Telescope with its 8.4 metre mirrors, or the Extremely Large Telescope (currently under construction: first light due in 2024) with its 39.2 metre segmented priary. Even the segmented designs weigh hundreds of tons; these instruments are too big and heavy to put in orbit even with SpaceX's Superheavy/Starship. If the light pollution from Starlink can't be mitigated, it'll be necessary to replace dozens of hundred million dollar to billion dollar instruments which took years or decades to build, at a post potentially greater than the entire consat cluster.
- deevolution 7y ago
  What's more important? Global internet access for the rest of the world population or a few dozen telescopes? Imo internet access is going to have immediate positive impact for billions of global disconnected poor.
  - cstross 7y ago
    I'm sure I could make better use of your home by demolishing it and erecting a homeless hostel. Isn't that more important than your prior claim to live there? (This is a m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r, not a literal proposal, but what Starlink is doing to astronomy on a global scale is pretty much equivalent. The onus should be on Starlink to (a) not do that, or (b) pay for complete relocation or replacement of the telescopes they've just wrecked. Yes, that's a lot of money. Boo hoo ...)
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      > The onus should be on Starlink to (a) not do that Why? Astronomers have no more claim to ownership of the sky than Starlink does.
      - pintxo 7y ago
gammarator 7y ago
Launch costs are not the dominant cost of building space telescopes, which are ~10x more expensive than equivalent ground-based systems (when they exist). Ground-based telescopes built in the 1940s are still being used for cutting-edge science today because it's simple and cheap to upgrade their instruments. That's not possible in space--when JWST runs out of propellant, it becomes just a $10B piece of space junk.
- SubiculumCode 7y ago
  Moon based telescopes then. Let's do it!
  - ISL 7y ago
    Putting a person on the moon cost a significant fraction of the US GDP. The tax burden required to move Earth's level of free dark-sky accessibility to space (step outside at night, buy binoculars, a Celestron, or LSST, and just look up) would be crippling for any nation.
    - SubiculumCode 7y ago
      But think of the return on the investment of cool.

rimliu 7y ago

Observations are being ruined now. Those cheap space telescopes will be available when ecactly? Is there even any project in the works besides JWT? Projects like these take a lot of time.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
Improve observation data post processing. Lasers are used as artificial stars [1] to subtract atmospheric distortion, use stacking [2] to remove StarLink tracks. Those observations aren't being "ruined", they simply have some noise to remove. Long term, we should be lifting observatories (both optical and RF) into orbit, Lagrange points, or the Moon. Observing from the ground sucks comparatively, and there's a lot of space out there. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guide_star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_guide_star [2] https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foundations-richard-wright/satellites-begone-how-to-remove-satellite-trails-from-your-astrophotography/ https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/imaging-foun... (Satellites, Begone! Remove Trails from Your Astrophotography)
- jsweojtj 7y ago
  That might work for imaging, but what's your fix for spectroscopy?
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    Optical, RF, or Xray?
    - jsweojtj 7y ago
      Let's start with optical.
peterwoerner 7y ago
Yes WFIRST[0] is currently in the works. JPLRMA[1] is investigating low cost mirror for space observation although they are primarily focused on the outer planets of our solar system. [0]https://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ https://wfirst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ [1]https://www.nap.edu/resource/13117/App https://www.nap.edu/resource/13117/App G 19_Enceladus-RMA.pdf

lidHanteyk 7y ago

On one hand, yes, you're entirely right about the eventual outcome, but on the other hand, let's get there gracefully. The article describes an event akin to commercial light pollution or commercial aviation, with the similar cause of private industry charging ahead of regulation and standards. It could be that the only solution is to quickly act to regulate space more completely, but we don't have a healthy international political climate for such regulation right now. Also, in terms of quality of evidence, there is sadly a relatively strong pseudoscientific strain of thought that denies any astronomy done from space. If we stop taking high-quality photos from the surface of the Earth using relatively mundane methods, then the flat-Earthers win. Finally, what if Kessler Syndrome sets in? In that case, it would not be cheaper to launch a telescope into space, even if the telescope is destined for a relatively distant place like a Lagrange point, since it first must run a gauntlet of debris. Meanwhile, observations from the ground would certainly be twinklier and noisier but not especially more expensive.

ncallaway 7y ago
> On one hand, yes, you're entirely right about the eventual outcome, but on the other hand, let's get there gracefully. The problem with a "get there gradually" approach (at least as I understand it, and I may not have understood you correctly) is that it pretty much precludes a useful LEO constellation. A LEO constellation is not really useful unless it has a significant number of satellites. Putting up 1% of the satellites doesn't really get you 1% of the functionality of the system. There's a minimum threshold you have to hit for the system to really be viable at all. Which means at _some_ point (if we have LEO constellations at all) we're going to have to really rapidly go from very few LEO satellites to a large number.
Miraste 7y ago
> in terms of quality of evidence, there is sadly a relatively strong pseudoscientific strain of thought that denies any astronomy done from space. If we stop taking high-quality photos from the surface of the Earth using relatively mundane methods, then the flat-Earthers win. This isn't a real problem with the quality of the photos. Such people should be kept out of power and otherwise ignored. > what if Kessler Syndrome sets in? Starlink can't result in Kessler Syndrome. The time it takes orbits to decay from that altitude is measured in single-digit years.

andyljones 7y ago

Not since the advent of modern adaptive optics[1]. Ground-based telescopes now outperform space telescopes in the visible spectrum[2]. For as long as the cost per kilo to orbit is higher than the cost per kilo to the Atacama desert, ground-based astronomy is going to be superior. The other great advantage of ground-based telescopes is that _they're easy to fix and improve_. The iteration loop is that you walk into the dome and you fiddle with things. You don't need multiple years of planning to polish a mirror. There's an excellent Twitter thread on this issue here[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics [2] https://astronomynow.com/2018/07/19/adaptive-optics-tomography-provides-hubble-class-images/ https://astronomynow.com/2018/07/19/adaptive-optics-tomograp... [3] https://twitter.com/cynosurae/status/1196567663977230336 https://twitter.com/cynosurae/status/1196567663977230336

semiotagonal 7y ago
Perhaps a deal could be worked out where the satellite companies also have to launch Atacama-scale telescopes, where Musk et al have to pay for the difference in cost between Atacama and orbit.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  Telescopes are pretty big. It would take 5-10 Falcon 9 launches to put something with that mass into orbit (although in space you could probably have a lighter mechanism for orienting el/az). The telescope's mirror is also too big to physically fit into the F9's fairing. Once you get it there, you need to assemble it and keep it running. Maintenance is a real doozy— building a telescope on Earth is expensive. Building a telescope in space is even harder, since it won't be regularly serviced and you have to overengineer it. A typical space telescope still costs an order of magnitude more than a recordbreakingly expensive earth-based one.
  - DennisP 7y ago
    Yes but the point of Starlink is to fund Starship, which is a lot bigger than Falcon 9. Its fairing is 9 meters in diameter[0], large enough for all but the top six land-based telescopes.[1] Its payload is 100+ tonnes, five times larger than Falcon 9's. Starship is also a lot cheaper per kilogram of payload; at scale, as low as $20/kg. Cheap launch also makes your satellites cheaper to build, since it's less of a disaster if you have to replace them. Musk has already floated the idea of building a second-generation Starship with an 18-meter fairing.[2] [0] https://www.spacex.com/starship https://www.spacex.com/starship [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflec... [2] https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-the-next-generation/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-the-next...

daveslash 7y ago

I can't comment on that specifically (telescopes in orbit, I invite others to). My two cents though are this: I frequently go on multi-day backpacking trips just to get away from it all. I can get so far out when the only human-made anything that I see are the occasional aircraft and the occasional satellite. It's a great disconnect -- I can pretend that the modern world doesn't exist. It would be a great disappointment to me if the evening/morning sky were to become so populated that there were constant reminders of the modern & interconnected world. I would be resentful of whoever ruined that for me, everyone else, and generations to come.

sbierwagen 7y ago
Sucks to be you, then.
hugs 7y ago
On these trips, do you bring an emergency radio or GPS?
- daveslash 7y ago
  Typically, no, but sometimes yes . It depends on how well I know the area (if at all), how far from the road, how many people are coming with, etc...I have a Yaseu FT-60, but (a) Don't have HAM license and (b) It's too heavy. I never take a GPS map, but sometimes I take an emergency GPS emergency locator (e.g. SPOT).
Miraste 7y ago
You won't be able to see these once they are at operational orbit unless you use a telescope. And, as the article says, future launches will be nonreflective.
- daveslash 7y ago
  That is encouraging. Thank you.

cstross 7y ago

How much do you think all the sunk infrastructure costs of existing telescopes cost, and how many years did it take to build them? The bigger telescopes today have primary reflectors that are vastly bigger than the James Webb Space Telescope: for example the Large Binocular Telescope with its 8.4 metre mirrors, or the Extremely Large Telescope (currently under construction: first light due in 2024) with its 39.2 metre segmented priary. Even the segmented designs weigh hundreds of tons; these instruments are too big and heavy to put in orbit even with SpaceX's Superheavy/Starship. If the light pollution from Starlink can't be mitigated, it'll be necessary to replace dozens of hundred million dollar to billion dollar instruments which took years or decades to build, at a post potentially greater than the entire consat cluster.

deevolution 7y ago
What's more important? Global internet access for the rest of the world population or a few dozen telescopes? Imo internet access is going to have immediate positive impact for billions of global disconnected poor.
- cstross 7y ago
  I'm sure I could make better use of your home by demolishing it and erecting a homeless hostel. Isn't that more important than your prior claim to live there? (This is a m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r, not a literal proposal, but what Starlink is doing to astronomy on a global scale is pretty much equivalent. The onus should be on Starlink to (a) not do that, or (b) pay for complete relocation or replacement of the telescopes they've just wrecked. Yes, that's a lot of money. Boo hoo ...)
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    > The onus should be on Starlink to (a) not do that Why? Astronomers have no more claim to ownership of the sky than Starlink does.
    - pintxo 7y ago

gammarator 7y ago

Launch costs are not the dominant cost of building space telescopes, which are ~10x more expensive than equivalent ground-based systems (when they exist). Ground-based telescopes built in the 1940s are still being used for cutting-edge science today because it's simple and cheap to upgrade their instruments. That's not possible in space--when JWST runs out of propellant, it becomes just a $10B piece of space junk.

SubiculumCode 7y ago
Moon based telescopes then. Let's do it!
- ISL 7y ago
  Putting a person on the moon cost a significant fraction of the US GDP. The tax burden required to move Earth's level of free dark-sky accessibility to space (step outside at night, buy binoculars, a Celestron, or LSST, and just look up) would be crippling for any nation.
  - SubiculumCode 7y ago
    But think of the return on the investment of cool.