3 ms·

Here’s a single $680MM observatory that looks pretty pissed and is struggling to figure out how they’ll deal with it. Granted probably won’t drive the value to

Here’s a single $680MM observatory that looks pretty pissed and is struggling to figure out how they’ll deal with it. Granted probably won’t drive the value to zero, but it probably will devalue the project quite substantially, from my read. https://www.lsst.org/content/lsst-statement-regarding-increased-deployment-satellite-constellations https://www.lsst.org/content/lsst-statement-regarding-increa... And I’m not arguing for stopping further spacecraft either. “Hey they don’t even legally need to mitigate their externalities!” is usually a good sign of “things that need regulation.”

panick21_ 3y ago
As I said, I was not arguing about regulation being bad. My point was its completely false to say that earth based astronomy is over. A minority of telescopes are not effected or slightly effected. But even small effects now will grow if you imagine sats going exponential. The very broad survey orient visible telescopes are most effected of course. Regulation both for visibility and for debris is warranted. But getting their by streaming 'earth astronomy is over and Kessler syndrome' is pretty counter-productive. If we can get away from that kind of language maybe we can actually make reasonable progress on these questions. Unfortunately I can not find the series of lectures from astronomers and SpaceX. That had really go information. But there is an active working group somewhere that is meeting regularly that can probably be found somewhere.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  I don’t think I (or anyone I’ve seen in this thread) has said “earth astronomy is over” or anything similar. They’ve said: this incurs a huge negative externality on the astronomy community. The response was: it doesn’t matter because Starship will send up space telescopes at some point hopefully (TBD how long it’ll take, if ever, for them to reach the same availability as extant terrestrial telescopes) That is the counterproductive response.

panick21_ 3y ago

As I said, I was not arguing about regulation being bad. My point was its completely false to say that earth based astronomy is over. A minority of telescopes are not effected or slightly effected. But even small effects now will grow if you imagine sats going exponential. The very broad survey orient visible telescopes are most effected of course. Regulation both for visibility and for debris is warranted. But getting their by streaming 'earth astronomy is over and Kessler syndrome' is pretty counter-productive. If we can get away from that kind of language maybe we can actually make reasonable progress on these questions. Unfortunately I can not find the series of lectures from astronomers and SpaceX. That had really go information. But there is an active working group somewhere that is meeting regularly that can probably be found somewhere.

ethanbond 3y ago
I don’t think I (or anyone I’ve seen in this thread) has said “earth astronomy is over” or anything similar. They’ve said: this incurs a huge negative externality on the astronomy community. The response was: it doesn’t matter because Starship will send up space telescopes at some point hopefully (TBD how long it’ll take, if ever, for them to reach the same availability as extant terrestrial telescopes) That is the counterproductive response.