3 ms·

I'm sure that some enterprising astronomer will release an open source way to remove satellite trails using orbital elements (if you know where your telescope i

I'm sure that some enterprising astronomer will release an open source way to remove satellite trails using orbital elements (if you know where your telescope is pointing and the current time, you can figure out which pixels contain satellites), but that really shouldn't be their responsibility.

tssva 7y ago
They don't have an inherint right to a satellite free view and Starlink is just the start of multiple systems which will be launched over the next few years. If they want to continue to do ground based astronomy it is their responsibility to determine how to continue to do so.
- ivraatiems 7y ago
  What's the difference between your argument and the following? "Starlink doesn't have an inherent right to launch satellites, and many new astronomy papers will be published in the next few years. If they want to continue launching satellites, it will be their responsibility to do so." The telescopes were here first, and are in many cases for the public good. Why does Starlink's dubious, potential private good outweigh that? To be clear, I am talking about ethical, not legal, responsibility.
  - choeger 7y ago
    Simple. Astronomy does not hinder Starlink in any way. You cannot take the inaction of society and turn it into an entitlement. By the same token you have no right to demand that people don't ride a bicycle on streets, just because up until now very few did (unless there is an explicit law against it, of course, but here it is perfectly legal).
    - ivraatiems 7y ago
      Except... don't I? If I didn't like that behavior, I'd protest it. Why are the rights of [new thing] automatically superior to rights of [old thing]? Just because Starlink isn't hindered technically doesn't mean it shouldn't be hindered societally. When you create something, the obligation is on you to do so in a thoughtful way that doesn't cause harm. It's not on society to get out of your way just because you did it. I'm not sure I understand how that addresses my question.
  - tssva 7y ago
    I would argue that Starlink's potential to provide internet access to people who currently can not get access is a greater public good then anything that land based astronomy will produce. I fail to see how being first means you have a greater moral claim to a public asset than the 2nd to arrive. Your position would mean transforming public assets and spaces effectively into private ones which can only be used by the 1st users.

tssva 7y ago

They don't have an inherint right to a satellite free view and Starlink is just the start of multiple systems which will be launched over the next few years. If they want to continue to do ground based astronomy it is their responsibility to determine how to continue to do so.

ivraatiems 7y ago
What's the difference between your argument and the following? "Starlink doesn't have an inherent right to launch satellites, and many new astronomy papers will be published in the next few years. If they want to continue launching satellites, it will be their responsibility to do so." The telescopes were here first, and are in many cases for the public good. Why does Starlink's dubious, potential private good outweigh that? To be clear, I am talking about ethical, not legal, responsibility.
- choeger 7y ago
  Simple. Astronomy does not hinder Starlink in any way. You cannot take the inaction of society and turn it into an entitlement. By the same token you have no right to demand that people don't ride a bicycle on streets, just because up until now very few did (unless there is an explicit law against it, of course, but here it is perfectly legal).
  - ivraatiems 7y ago
    Except... don't I? If I didn't like that behavior, I'd protest it. Why are the rights of [new thing] automatically superior to rights of [old thing]? Just because Starlink isn't hindered technically doesn't mean it shouldn't be hindered societally. When you create something, the obligation is on you to do so in a thoughtful way that doesn't cause harm. It's not on society to get out of your way just because you did it. I'm not sure I understand how that addresses my question.
- tssva 7y ago
  I would argue that Starlink's potential to provide internet access to people who currently can not get access is a greater public good then anything that land based astronomy will produce. I fail to see how being first means you have a greater moral claim to a public asset than the 2nd to arrive. Your position would mean transforming public assets and spaces effectively into private ones which can only be used by the 1st users.