3 ms·
Yeah, this is a tradeoff, and the balance seems to favor adding more satellites. We're not going to the stars for centuries at least. It's unlikely that further
by asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Yeah, this is a tradeoff, and the balance seems to favor adding more satellites. We're not going to the stars for centuries at least. It's unlikely that further knowledge we're able to glean from ground-based installations will ever have practical value for anyone on any appreciable timescale. As cool as the stars are, they're really far away and damn hard to see, especially through the atmosphere.
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI think long term this isn't really a tradeoff. Starlink exists to fund SpaceX ventures designed to significantly drop the costs of lifting bulk mass to space. That translates to even cheaper missions, which means space-based astronomy can become affordable. What is a loss of some percentage of astronomical observations today, if it means putting a telescope on the backside of the Moon in 20 years, or a ridiculously large "virtual telescope" via a satellite constellation doing interferometry?