4 ms·

It seems you're basing your assertion on projections based on wishful thinking. It's like saying to a cancer patient that he shouldn't worry about having cancer

• kbenson 6y ago
  > It's like saying to a cancer patient that he shouldn't worry about having cancer because in the future you believe there will be wonder drugs that fix everything. Is the field of astronomy facing death because of Starlink? That seems a bit excessive. I would say it's more like a national healthcare system covering only poor quality glasses for vision for a decade while they pump money into research and training for laser corrective surgery to both reduce the downsides and make it much more affordable, in preparation for covering laser reconstructive surgery at the end of that period. > I already have a ton of money invested in earth telescopes. What good does it do me if you argue that in the future I might gain some capabilities if I scrap everything and buy a whole new infrastructure? Again, telescopes aren't scrapping everything, astronomers aren't going to disappear. They're at most some percentage less useful than they thought they would be prior to this. That sucks, but homeowners have complained about other people moving in and obstructing their perfect view for a long time, so it's not entirely new. I don't support Starlink because I think SpaceX has some right over astronomers, but because I think humanity as a whole benefits from more industry in space, and there's a solution for astronomy on the other side of this, and I don't want humanity held back because astronomers feel it infringes on a domain with a problem they've generally not had to worry about (even if they would probably argue that they are doing it for the benefit of humanity by providing knowledge). Bottom line, I think the benefit to humanity from increased space industry is greater than the benefit unhampered astronomy provides in a case where we impede that industry.
  • astrophysician 6y ago
    To be honest, I understand where you are coming from, and share your opinion that many issues are more important than astronomy, including humanitarian issues. I think actually most astronomers would agree with that (the ones that I know, anyway). But the problem here is with the way that this debate is being framed. There is a false dichotomy that has been repeated here which I sum up as basically "Space-X is trying to solve humanitarian problem A, and astronomers are getting in the way! Deal with it astronomers, you are not more important than humanitarian issue A." but that's not at all what's actually happening. This is a monumentally impactful project undertaken by Space-X in secret, with enormous ramifications on science that -- despite the simplistic claims here -- are not something that can be worked around (LSST and other projects cannot be done in space, regardless of the cost of space delivery). Instead of responsibly investigating the impact, consulting with scientific agencies to either mitigate them, or prepare for the impact (as they are doing now after a huge outcry, but there is little that can be done now), they have instead opted to completely blindside entire branches of science, ruining decades of work around the globe and impacting tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in R&D. Even their press releases now say things like they are "learning how astronomical detectors work" -- that is extremely disturbing. That should basically never happen. There are responsible ways to do what Space-X has done, and they have shirked those responsibilities.
    • kbenson 6y ago
      > There is a false dichotomy that has been repeated here which I sum up as basically "Space-X is trying to solve humanitarian problem A, and astronomers are getting in the way! I'm not trying to really frame it as SpaceX. I think it's a bit more fundamental than that. There are benefits to lots of satellites providing services, there are benefits to decreased launch costs. SpaceX is only really in the discussion because they've leveraged the latter to achieve the former for their own benefit (and hopefully the benefit of others). Put another way, even if Starlink wasn't a thing, do we think there wouldn't be the same amount of more satellites in the sky for other reasons and for a hundred different companies 20 years from now? If this is an inevitable problem (and I think it is, unless we decide Space industry is just not worth it), then what's the solution for astronomy? Whatever it is, we should just do it now, and maybe try to get some more money out of SpaceX for it, because it needs to be done anyway. This is a "the world is changing because of technology, I wish it wouldn't" type of problem, and we've seen how those play out. You're much better off if you work with the flow than against it. That is, coal miners can complain all they want and try to get intervention, but those that see the writing on the wall and jump into those retraining programs sooner than later will be much better off. That doesn't mean they shouldn't petition the government for more subsidies to help with that though... > This is a monumentally impactful project undertaken by Space-X in secret Secret? Starlink was publicly announced in early 2015, filed with the FCC in late 2016, and the maiden flight to deploy satellites was in 2018, according to wikiperdia.[1] Maybe you're referring to something else? I'm confused as to what you're referring to. > are not something that can be worked around (LSST and other projects cannot be done in space, regardless of the cost of space delivery). Okay, but why? I can accept this is the case, and even likely for some things (I suspected not everything could be done exactly the same in space), but without details how am I or anyone else to weigh whether they think that specific task is more or less important than the alternative? > Instead of responsibly investigating the impact, consulting with scientific agencies to either mitigate them, or prepare for the impact ... they have instead opted to completely blindside entire branches of science They announced publicly and filed with the FCC 4-5 years ago. The first criticism I'm seeing about telescopes or astronomy is in late 2018 and 2019, and is more worried that they won't be able to avoid collisions and we'll have kessler syndrome[2], but maybe you know of earlier criticism. Was there criticism from the astronomy community prior to this? It seems like if they thought it would be a problem, they should have spoken up. If they didn't, why didn't they? The number of satellites is increasing, has this been an entirely non-issue for that community? > Even their press releases now say things like they are "learning how astronomical detectors work" -- that is extremely disturbing. That should basically never happen. Why? Has it been the responsibility of launching companies in the past to check with the astronomy community on whether they're impacted? Is publicly announcing your plans for years (and hyping them around the world) and filing with government agencies not sufficient in giving warning to people that might be impacted, and know better than anyone else - including the people launching the satellites - whether their specific jobs are impacted, to speak up? To be clear, I'm not trying to be snide in these questions. Where I ask these questions, I'm actually asking these questions. For example, are space agencies in the habit of asking astronomers if a satellite will cause problems? I can see how NASA traditionally might have done that, but that might not have occurred to a company whose mandate doesn't also include a lot of astronomy work. In that case, maybe what we need are some legal frameworks to make sure this is assessed ahead of time (not that we can enforce anything the space agencies or companies in other countries). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink 2: https://mashable.com/2018/03/06/starlink-spacex-satellites-orbital-debris/ https://mashable.com/2018/03/06/starlink-spacex-satellites-o...