4 ms·

You make a fair point -- I think maybe it is not totally fair to blame the companies here -- they are in a competitive environment and really the best we can ex

You make a fair point -- I think maybe it is not totally fair to blame the companies here -- they are in a competitive environment and really the best we can expect is for them to follow the letter of the law, which it seems they mostly did. There is a suit against the FCC that argues they incorrectly claimed that their constellation would not have an "environmental impact" (which would have required an environmental impact study) but not sure how well that will hold up in court; it looks like that's best legal avenue we have at the moment to fight this. The problem is really that there needs to be better oversight and more regulation. The laws as they stand do not address the problems that these constellations produce, because they were written in a time when starlink-like operations were scarcely imaginable. SpaceX and amazon, etc., should definitely be allowed to do cool and serious projects like this, but the oversight agencies basically saying "hey do whatever you want" is a recipe for serious accidents like collisions, as well as a needlessly enormous impact on astronomy research. If there were, say, albedo requirements or something, everyone would have to plan for that, but that is not in place today. One part that irks me even in the absence of regulation is that SpaceX provided no forewarning of how bright their Starlink satellites would be, which astronomers were shocked by. Space-X claimed they were "surprised" by their brightness which is either a lie or belies serious incompetence.

renewiltord 6y ago
Is it a cost thing or a capability thing? i.e. is it possible for Starlink to have what they want without interfering with terrestrial astronomy or are we really choosing one or the other? Quite sympathetic to astronomers if it is cost thing, but undecided (maybe slightly leaning Starlink) if it is capability thing. Assuming that within 20 years we can have sufficiently cheap space launch systems that there are sufficient geosynchronous telescopes for amateur use would that solve this problem? Genuine questions, not Socratic method.
- astrophysician 6y ago
  > Is it a cost thing or a capability thing? i.e. is it possible for Starlink to have what they want without interfering with terrestrial astronomy or are we really choosing one or the other? Quite sympathetic to astronomers if it is cost thing, but undecided (maybe slightly leaning Starlink) if it is capability thing. I think it's a bit of both; right now SpaceX is trying to get the brightness of their starlink sats down to ~7th mag (they're at 5th mag now, they have an experimental coating that should bring this down to ~6th mag), and it sounds like if they can do this the problems will be far more manageable (for LSST specifically this amounts to a few extra months of observing time, however the impact even with these mitigations is strongly dependent on the specific science case). However, this work should be done before approval. What happens when SpaceX realizes that getting things down to 7th mag is too difficult and costly and time-intensive? Without regulations in place, I would expect they shrug their shoulders, do some PR to frame the problem as "us vs those pesky astronomers" and launch what they want to launch. We have virtually no leverage. But from the standpoint of people that operate in space pretty regularly, what we're asking is pretty basic. Astronomy of course isn't going to be thrilled with the amount of satellites growing by a factor of 10-100x, but we live in the real world. But something that monumental needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully and with respect to the billions of dollars of R&D already paid for that will be impacted. > Assuming that within 20 years we can have sufficiently cheap space launch systems that there are sufficient geosynchronous telescopes for amateur use would that solve this problem? Again, space delivery costs are only one factor. Not to say this wouldn't enable new kinds of instruments or make some new things possible, but it would not solve the problem, no. There are too many things that can't realistically be done from space.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Cool beans. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
    - astrophysician 6y ago
      Sure! I think your questions are very reasonable, we'll have to see how it all shakes out.
renewiltord 6y ago
By the way, are you an astronomer? Would you mind putting your email in your profile? I'd love to chat without the accompanying gallery.
- astrophysician 6y ago
  Not technically; I've got a PhD in astrophysics but no longer work in the field. You can contact me at astrophysicianhn@gmail.com.

renewiltord 6y ago

Is it a cost thing or a capability thing? i.e. is it possible for Starlink to have what they want without interfering with terrestrial astronomy or are we really choosing one or the other? Quite sympathetic to astronomers if it is cost thing, but undecided (maybe slightly leaning Starlink) if it is capability thing. Assuming that within 20 years we can have sufficiently cheap space launch systems that there are sufficient geosynchronous telescopes for amateur use would that solve this problem? Genuine questions, not Socratic method.

astrophysician 6y ago
> Is it a cost thing or a capability thing? i.e. is it possible for Starlink to have what they want without interfering with terrestrial astronomy or are we really choosing one or the other? Quite sympathetic to astronomers if it is cost thing, but undecided (maybe slightly leaning Starlink) if it is capability thing. I think it's a bit of both; right now SpaceX is trying to get the brightness of their starlink sats down to ~7th mag (they're at 5th mag now, they have an experimental coating that should bring this down to ~6th mag), and it sounds like if they can do this the problems will be far more manageable (for LSST specifically this amounts to a few extra months of observing time, however the impact even with these mitigations is strongly dependent on the specific science case). However, this work should be done before approval. What happens when SpaceX realizes that getting things down to 7th mag is too difficult and costly and time-intensive? Without regulations in place, I would expect they shrug their shoulders, do some PR to frame the problem as "us vs those pesky astronomers" and launch what they want to launch. We have virtually no leverage. But from the standpoint of people that operate in space pretty regularly, what we're asking is pretty basic. Astronomy of course isn't going to be thrilled with the amount of satellites growing by a factor of 10-100x, but we live in the real world. But something that monumental needs to be done thoughtfully and carefully and with respect to the billions of dollars of R&D already paid for that will be impacted. > Assuming that within 20 years we can have sufficiently cheap space launch systems that there are sufficient geosynchronous telescopes for amateur use would that solve this problem? Again, space delivery costs are only one factor. Not to say this wouldn't enable new kinds of instruments or make some new things possible, but it would not solve the problem, no. There are too many things that can't realistically be done from space.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Cool beans. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
  - astrophysician 6y ago
    Sure! I think your questions are very reasonable, we'll have to see how it all shakes out.

renewiltord 6y ago

By the way, are you an astronomer? Would you mind putting your email in your profile? I'd love to chat without the accompanying gallery.

astrophysician 6y ago
Not technically; I've got a PhD in astrophysics but no longer work in the field. You can contact me at astrophysicianhn@gmail.com.