6 ms·

Apart from all the comments about this being a bad faith post, I wonder about the utilitarian argument, if you take it at face value. If you could provide decen

Apart from all the comments about this being a bad faith post, I wonder about the utilitarian argument, if you take it at face value. If you could provide decent internet at low cost to large parts of the world that are underserved, at the cost of ruining ground-based telescopes, is that a good trade-off? What if it's just certain kind of telescopes, or certain classes of astronomers (as this seems to be)?

marcus_holmes 6y ago
I think this is useful if we also consider that part of SpaceX's plan is to make launching satellites cheap (in fact, launching anything cheap). So while ground-based astronomy will suffer, space-based astronomy will get cheaper and easier. Presumably to the point where people who want to can subscribe to a Hubble-like satellite service and get all the space photos their hearts desire. Also, we made a similar trade-off a long time ago - most people live in heavily light-polluted cities, because we value having street lighting more than being able to see the stars.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  Cost of launch is not really main reason why we don’t see more space based astronomy. 1. Space is a hostile place, and developing telescope that works there is much harder. 2. There are very real limits on size and weight of what can be put there right now, and rocket equation is ruthless. 3. Any type of maintenance or upgrades are basically impossible, compared to earth based. 4. Adaptive optics were such a huge breakthrough, that basically negated need for most of space based telescopes.
  - gpm 6y ago
    I would call cost of launch to space the main reason, just not the only significant one.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Reasons 2 and 3 are big part of why launches of expensive. There's a feedback loop in space launches: they're expensive, therefore you launch less, so you need to add redundancies and spend more time ensuring the payload will work, which raises the development cost and increases mass, which makes launches less frequent and more expensive. Conversely, reducing the cost of access to space means you can send more stuff that's less robust, which shortens development time and makes it less expensive, and of course makes technological progress faster. Which translates to: suddenly space telescopes may be more affordable, and more of them will be launched.
    - gammarator 6y ago
      Some ground-based observatories have been productively operated for nearly a _century_, with improvements in instrumentation providing leaps forward in sensitivity. That amortizes the cost of the observatory (mirror, site, etc.) across many years. Even with cheaper launches it's much harder to get that benefit in space--servicing missions are much more expensive than driving up a mountain...
- simion314 6y ago
  But now if we are forced to move all ground telescopes on space SpaceX will make profit so is a win-win for SpaceX and the public will have to pay to replace working satellites on the ground with expensive and smaller ones on space. We should be fair and acknowledge all the downsides, and if you disagree I would ask to waste a bit of effort and explain why we should ignore this costs on the public(maybe the costs are worth it in the long run but we should not ignore them)
  - HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
    Space telescopes are vastly superior to ground ones. There is no competition, imo the decreasing cost of launching will enable incredible telescopes in the future.
    - simion314 6y ago
      If you have same size yes but the issue in space you can send only smaller telescopes, this ones are inferior on some dimensions versus the big ones we have on high mountains on deserts but sure a small telescope in space is better then a same size on the ground. Let me know if somehow I am wrong and for example Hubble is superior to all telescopes on the ground at the time it was launched. The best thing is to have it all, giant telescope arrays on the ground, telescopes in orbit, on the moon, on the other side of the sun/
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      That's a bit like saying that forks are superior to knives. They're good at different things. Ground-based telescopes have a number of very significant advantages over space-based telescopes. You can build much larger and heavier telescopes and instruments on the ground. If you want to observe faint objects, you need more photons. To capture more photons, you need a larger primary mirror. Space-based telescopes used to give higher resolution, but adaptive optics undo much of that advantage. In fact, because the diffraction limit is dependent on the size of the primary mirror, ground-based telescopes can achieve better resolution than space-based telescopes. You can attach large, heavy instruments, such as massively multiplexed spectrometers, to ground-based telescopes. And you can switch instruments out and do periodic upgrades and maintenance. Space-based telescopes have advantages in certain specific areas. They can observe wavelengths that Earth's atmosphere absorbs or emits at (such as the ultraviolet and infrared). They can achieve much better calibration, because there's no atmosphere to calibrate out. They can achieve high resolution across a wide field of view (adaptive optics negates the effects of the atmosphere in a small field of view). Sometimes you need these particular advantages, so space telescopes are critical. Often you don't, and ground-based telescopes are superior.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  SpaceX going going to sign on the dotted line to provide free service to observatories damaged by starlinked? Because unless it signs a contract, this whole argument is a load of hot air.
CydeWeys 6y ago
This exactly. Satellites are incredibly useful and enable trillions of dollars of worldwide economic output that would not be possible otherwise. This is a very meaningful improvement in everyone's lives. We should not stop using them simply because they are visible in the night sky, and make astrophotography a little bit harder (though not much harder -- removing satellite streaks is a default enabled option in astrophotography image stacking software).
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Its notntrillions, and should be done ina way that does not ruin other people's jobs
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    I don't think you realize how much economic productivity is enabled by telecommunications satellites, GPS, earth-watching satellites, and more. Even just having a better grasp on the weather is worth many, many billions of dollars annually worldwide. Let alone GPS and knowing where you actually are (and how valuable that is to practically any business that operates in the real world; we're even talking things as far-flung as automated tractors in agriculture that are enabled by GPS).
irthomasthomas 6y ago
Phased array ground stations cost about $10,000-$100,000.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  That's a lot of money. Considering that the company has reversed course on almost every promise it has ever made about Starlink -- orbit altitude, inter-sat networking, service area, cost -- I think it's a good bet that Starlink will ultimately just look like a capital-intensive Iridium-like network without the ability to service mobile stations. I imagine the US military will end up being the main customer.
  - paranoidrobot 6y ago
    > Considering that the company has reversed course on almost every promise it has ever made about Starlink -- orbit altitude, inter-sat networking, service area, cost All of these things are coming, in subsequent revisions of hardware. Everyone on HN should recognise the pattern - it's very much a launch of a minimum viable product.
- gpm 6y ago
  If you're willing to take SpaceX at their word you are off by two orders of magnitude. I don't see why you wouldn't be.
- mooman219 6y ago
  Which is an order of magnitude less than a cell tower.
  - mantap 6y ago
    Presumably that phased array ground station will be attached to a cell tower, it's not like people are gonna connect their phones with Ethernet.
    - mooman219 6y ago
mantap 6y ago
The premise is false. Musk doesn't need to ruin ground based telescopes in order to make Starlink a reality. This issue could be resolved by going slower, Musk just doesn't want to wait.
- CPUstring 6y ago
  Musk drives his team for speed because every one of his companies still has the "how much runway do we have" mindset. Lots of people can throw stones from their glass towers knowing they work at a company that will exist in 2030 or 2040, but SpaceX can't say that unless they are always moving.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

I think this is useful if we also consider that part of SpaceX's plan is to make launching satellites cheap (in fact, launching anything cheap). So while ground-based astronomy will suffer, space-based astronomy will get cheaper and easier. Presumably to the point where people who want to can subscribe to a Hubble-like satellite service and get all the space photos their hearts desire. Also, we made a similar trade-off a long time ago - most people live in heavily light-polluted cities, because we value having street lighting more than being able to see the stars.

justapassenger 6y ago
Cost of launch is not really main reason why we don’t see more space based astronomy. 1. Space is a hostile place, and developing telescope that works there is much harder. 2. There are very real limits on size and weight of what can be put there right now, and rocket equation is ruthless. 3. Any type of maintenance or upgrades are basically impossible, compared to earth based. 4. Adaptive optics were such a huge breakthrough, that basically negated need for most of space based telescopes.
- gpm 6y ago
  I would call cost of launch to space the main reason, just not the only significant one.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Reasons 2 and 3 are big part of why launches of expensive. There's a feedback loop in space launches: they're expensive, therefore you launch less, so you need to add redundancies and spend more time ensuring the payload will work, which raises the development cost and increases mass, which makes launches less frequent and more expensive. Conversely, reducing the cost of access to space means you can send more stuff that's less robust, which shortens development time and makes it less expensive, and of course makes technological progress faster. Which translates to: suddenly space telescopes may be more affordable, and more of them will be launched.
  - gammarator 6y ago
    Some ground-based observatories have been productively operated for nearly a _century_, with improvements in instrumentation providing leaps forward in sensitivity. That amortizes the cost of the observatory (mirror, site, etc.) across many years. Even with cheaper launches it's much harder to get that benefit in space--servicing missions are much more expensive than driving up a mountain...
simion314 6y ago
But now if we are forced to move all ground telescopes on space SpaceX will make profit so is a win-win for SpaceX and the public will have to pay to replace working satellites on the ground with expensive and smaller ones on space. We should be fair and acknowledge all the downsides, and if you disagree I would ask to waste a bit of effort and explain why we should ignore this costs on the public(maybe the costs are worth it in the long run but we should not ignore them)
- HeadsUpHigh 6y ago
  Space telescopes are vastly superior to ground ones. There is no competition, imo the decreasing cost of launching will enable incredible telescopes in the future.
  - simion314 6y ago
    If you have same size yes but the issue in space you can send only smaller telescopes, this ones are inferior on some dimensions versus the big ones we have on high mountains on deserts but sure a small telescope in space is better then a same size on the ground. Let me know if somehow I am wrong and for example Hubble is superior to all telescopes on the ground at the time it was launched. The best thing is to have it all, giant telescope arrays on the ground, telescopes in orbit, on the moon, on the other side of the sun/
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    That's a bit like saying that forks are superior to knives. They're good at different things. Ground-based telescopes have a number of very significant advantages over space-based telescopes. You can build much larger and heavier telescopes and instruments on the ground. If you want to observe faint objects, you need more photons. To capture more photons, you need a larger primary mirror. Space-based telescopes used to give higher resolution, but adaptive optics undo much of that advantage. In fact, because the diffraction limit is dependent on the size of the primary mirror, ground-based telescopes can achieve better resolution than space-based telescopes. You can attach large, heavy instruments, such as massively multiplexed spectrometers, to ground-based telescopes. And you can switch instruments out and do periodic upgrades and maintenance. Space-based telescopes have advantages in certain specific areas. They can observe wavelengths that Earth's atmosphere absorbs or emits at (such as the ultraviolet and infrared). They can achieve much better calibration, because there's no atmosphere to calibrate out. They can achieve high resolution across a wide field of view (adaptive optics negates the effects of the atmosphere in a small field of view). Sometimes you need these particular advantages, so space telescopes are critical. Often you don't, and ground-based telescopes are superior.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
SpaceX going going to sign on the dotted line to provide free service to observatories damaged by starlinked? Because unless it signs a contract, this whole argument is a load of hot air.

CydeWeys 6y ago

This exactly. Satellites are incredibly useful and enable trillions of dollars of worldwide economic output that would not be possible otherwise. This is a very meaningful improvement in everyone's lives. We should not stop using them simply because they are visible in the night sky, and make astrophotography a little bit harder (though not much harder -- removing satellite streaks is a default enabled option in astrophotography image stacking software).

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Its notntrillions, and should be done ina way that does not ruin other people's jobs
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  I don't think you realize how much economic productivity is enabled by telecommunications satellites, GPS, earth-watching satellites, and more. Even just having a better grasp on the weather is worth many, many billions of dollars annually worldwide. Let alone GPS and knowing where you actually are (and how valuable that is to practically any business that operates in the real world; we're even talking things as far-flung as automated tractors in agriculture that are enabled by GPS).

irthomasthomas 6y ago

Phased array ground stations cost about $10,000-$100,000.

jeffbee 6y ago
That's a lot of money. Considering that the company has reversed course on almost every promise it has ever made about Starlink -- orbit altitude, inter-sat networking, service area, cost -- I think it's a good bet that Starlink will ultimately just look like a capital-intensive Iridium-like network without the ability to service mobile stations. I imagine the US military will end up being the main customer.
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  > Considering that the company has reversed course on almost every promise it has ever made about Starlink -- orbit altitude, inter-sat networking, service area, cost All of these things are coming, in subsequent revisions of hardware. Everyone on HN should recognise the pattern - it's very much a launch of a minimum viable product.
gpm 6y ago
If you're willing to take SpaceX at their word you are off by two orders of magnitude. I don't see why you wouldn't be.
mooman219 6y ago
Which is an order of magnitude less than a cell tower.
- mantap 6y ago
  Presumably that phased array ground station will be attached to a cell tower, it's not like people are gonna connect their phones with Ethernet.
  - mooman219 6y ago

mantap 6y ago

The premise is false. Musk doesn't need to ruin ground based telescopes in order to make Starlink a reality. This issue could be resolved by going slower, Musk just doesn't want to wait.

CPUstring 6y ago
Musk drives his team for speed because every one of his companies still has the "how much runway do we have" mindset. Lots of people can throw stones from their glass towers knowing they work at a company that will exist in 2030 or 2040, but SpaceX can't say that unless they are always moving.