5 ms·

Some animals navigate using stars: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/ Starlink could p

Some animals navigate using stars: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/ Starlink could potentially disrupt that. Most likely it will not, but who knows. One could also argue that satellites that do not fully burn in atmosphere produce waste. From legal perspective, I guess it's hard to argue that there is no impact, if you do not asses the impact. Overall, I don't think there is not much cause for concern for non-human activities. And even for humans it's about astronomy and moving dots on night sky outside urban areas.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Artificial lighting on the surface has a far greater impact on wildlife.
- cecja 7y ago
  Atombombs are worse than cluster bombs so we should use them.
- nolok 7y ago
  But that doesn't say anything about the impact (or lack thereof) of StarLink on wildlife.
  - arcticfox 7y ago
    It does say something about a precedent though. I like protecting the environment, but the proposed scenario seems pretty implausible to me.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- davedx 7y ago
  How do you know for sure if you don't do an impact assessment?
  - joncrane 7y ago
    Impact assessments are generally contracted out via RFP. As a government contractor myself, I have no confidence that a random environmental impact assessment has any semblance of reality to it. It's a crapshoot as far as which contractor is selected and if they focus on the right factors and come to the right conclusion.
TheDesolate0 7y ago
Ha! You didn't even read the paper you linked. Found the redditor. Starlight, not stars. Starlight on a moonless night, as in general illumination. So, the satellites would help the critters you refer to. The only hazards these satellites will provide are. 1. more space junk (hazard to critters IN space) 2. more earth junk an pollution when the fall back down. As for astronomy, we need to move that outside the atmosphere anyhow.
- simion314 7y ago
  So let's spend 1000 or more money from the public so Elon and other big companies get even more rich. If you think that a space telescope is just an earth telescope that you can move it in space you are wrong. Also even if you have the money you don't have the space ships to lift giant mirrors into space and the technology to keep stuff there to monitor and fix things. If this satellites would have a major upside then maybe we could consider them, there are alternatives to get internet to people but there are o alternatives now to put big telescopes in space.
- FailingNYT 7y ago
  Everybody here is a redditor. Just with pompous language.
a3n 7y ago
> One could also argue that satellites that do not fully burn in atmosphere produce waste. Getting the satellites into orbit produces waste.
- kwhitefoot 7y ago
  So does burning them whether fully or not. The question is really: how much and is it important?

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Artificial lighting on the surface has a far greater impact on wildlife.

cecja 7y ago
Atombombs are worse than cluster bombs so we should use them.
nolok 7y ago
But that doesn't say anything about the impact (or lack thereof) of StarLink on wildlife.
- arcticfox 7y ago
  It does say something about a precedent though. I like protecting the environment, but the proposed scenario seems pretty implausible to me.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
davedx 7y ago
How do you know for sure if you don't do an impact assessment?
- joncrane 7y ago
  Impact assessments are generally contracted out via RFP. As a government contractor myself, I have no confidence that a random environmental impact assessment has any semblance of reality to it. It's a crapshoot as far as which contractor is selected and if they focus on the right factors and come to the right conclusion.

TheDesolate0 7y ago

Ha! You didn't even read the paper you linked. Found the redditor. Starlight, not stars. Starlight on a moonless night, as in general illumination. So, the satellites would help the critters you refer to. The only hazards these satellites will provide are. 1. more space junk (hazard to critters IN space) 2. more earth junk an pollution when the fall back down. As for astronomy, we need to move that outside the atmosphere anyhow.

simion314 7y ago
So let's spend 1000 or more money from the public so Elon and other big companies get even more rich. If you think that a space telescope is just an earth telescope that you can move it in space you are wrong. Also even if you have the money you don't have the space ships to lift giant mirrors into space and the technology to keep stuff there to monitor and fix things. If this satellites would have a major upside then maybe we could consider them, there are alternatives to get internet to people but there are o alternatives now to put big telescopes in space.
FailingNYT 7y ago
Everybody here is a redditor. Just with pompous language.

a3n 7y ago

> One could also argue that satellites that do not fully burn in atmosphere produce waste. Getting the satellites into orbit produces waste.

kwhitefoot 7y ago
So does burning them whether fully or not. The question is really: how much and is it important?