4 ms·

I guess one answer is that there's an asymmetry here. There are many terrestrial options for internet service, but there's only one sky to observe. The terrestr

by notJim 5y ago

I guess one answer is that there's an asymmetry here. There are many terrestrial options for internet service, but there's only one sky to observe. The terrestrial options would need to be funded, but I am skeptical that would be such an unsurmountable task. On the other hand, once all the satellites are up, clean observation of the sky becomes impossible.

pseudo0 5y ago
Or we could use a tiny fraction of the economic potential enabled by global, ubiquitous high-speed internet to put a few more telescopes in space? Laying cable across the globe also seems like it would be a whole lot more expensive and environmentally harmful than a few extra satellite launches.
- freemint 5y ago
  There are some measurements we are not able to do in space (until we have habitats in orbit) due to tuning and experimentation required, size and heating/cooling constraints ... However some new experiments can be done in space, so some branches of astronomy will loose, a few selected will win. The environmental argument is an interesting one and i have no idea on the total lifetime damage of both solutions. The heaviest digging will be required where there are humans living any way. Laying cables and maintenance while probably more expensive also has some benefits such a high paying jobs, distributed all over the world instead of increasing the worlds Gini coefficient further. I would recognize Starlink as a good idea (outweighing the negatives) if it would be public infrastructure but that train has sailed.
mlindner 5y ago
> On the other hand, once all the satellites are up, clean observation of the sky becomes impossible. The satellites are actively controlled and can be commanded to deorbit. If a court ordered it (incredibly unlikely), SpaceX could immediately order all the satellites to deorbit. This is a reversible situation if such a need arose.

by notJim 5y ago

pseudo0 5y ago

Or we could use a tiny fraction of the economic potential enabled by global, ubiquitous high-speed internet to put a few more telescopes in space? Laying cable across the globe also seems like it would be a whole lot more expensive and environmentally harmful than a few extra satellite launches.

freemint 5y ago
There are some measurements we are not able to do in space (until we have habitats in orbit) due to tuning and experimentation required, size and heating/cooling constraints ... However some new experiments can be done in space, so some branches of astronomy will loose, a few selected will win. The environmental argument is an interesting one and i have no idea on the total lifetime damage of both solutions. The heaviest digging will be required where there are humans living any way. Laying cables and maintenance while probably more expensive also has some benefits such a high paying jobs, distributed all over the world instead of increasing the worlds Gini coefficient further. I would recognize Starlink as a good idea (outweighing the negatives) if it would be public infrastructure but that train has sailed.

mlindner 5y ago

> On the other hand, once all the satellites are up, clean observation of the sky becomes impossible. The satellites are actively controlled and can be commanded to deorbit. If a court ordered it (incredibly unlikely), SpaceX could immediately order all the satellites to deorbit. This is a reversible situation if such a need arose.