4 ms·

So more satellites to block the view for astronomers.

by croes 2y ago

tgsovlerkhgsel 2y ago
Progress tends to have downsides. Highways and rail tracks destroy the environment and make areas hard to cross, but I think most people would acknowledge that on balance, having them them is a good thing. In this case, the obvious solution would be to provide a small number of orbital observatories to the astronomy community for free or with heavily subsidized pricing.
- croes 2y ago
  You could turn that around. Progress in Earth bound astronomy has the downside of less satellite internet.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    I'm fairly certain that Earth-based astronomy predates artificial satellites by at least a few years.
    - croes 2y ago
      And since then there was no progress? We can build better, bigger and more sensible telescopes but we can hardly use those new capabilities if they are impaired by satellites. Space telescopes are expensive and harder to maintain.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  What progress? I gain nothing from this. I have symmetrical cheap reliable fiber to my house.
  - dboreham 2y ago
    I don't, so there's that.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    You call that progress? I gain next to nothing from cheap reliable fiber being available at your house either.
  - 93po 2y ago
    this reads really strongly as satire to the point i can't believe it's authentic. hacker news poster says "my cheap fiber is working just fine, why does anyone need satellite internet", completely ignoring the literally billion people who can't access the internet reliably at all due to infrastructure failures
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      My point was only that progress isn't so black and white. Oil drilling is progress too!
- timewizard 2y ago
  > but I think most people would acknowledge that on balance, having them them is a good thing. Of course it is. The next question is "is it a good thing to let a single owner completely control access to this resource?" We've actually decided in the case of highways and rails, that no, it's not. There needs to be reasonable and non-discriminatory access to these resources otherwise the trade is not worthwhile. We actually have laws that are meant to enforce this. > the obvious solution would be to provide a small number of orbital observatories to the astronomy community for free or with heavily subsidized pricing. Define the "astronomy community." Do we do first come first served or do we have a priority list? How do we handle disputes? Is it just US citizens or do we need to offer this to the entire world? What if the vendor fails to make good on their concessions? What sort of penalties should surround this system? There's really nothing "obvious" about this.
- thrance 2y ago
  Building a highways is not necessarily "progress". We really ought to stop calling "progress" the destruction of a natural habitat that we will never be able to rebuild, for the construction of a superflous road that will close in 15 years because of poor traffic anyway.
- immibis 2y ago
  If Jeff has the right to jam my telescope with his satellite due to the lack of regulation, do I have the right to jam his satellite with my telescope due to the same lack of regulation, or does it only work one way?
93po 2y ago
this is such a weird talking about that basically any real astronomer doesn't really care about, at all. it just comes across as "let's find any way to criticize elon possible" or "let's write clickbait based on a couple of terminally online comments on twitter". satellites are not blocking views, and astronomers are overwhelmingly in support of a healthy space industry, which includes satellite launches. the cutting edge of astronomy relies on satellites, it would be weird to be against them
mrshadowgoose 2y ago
I am entirely convinced that absent LEO comsat constellations, people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people". If you genuinely care about the field of astronomy, rest assured that the same falling launch costs that have enabled LEO comsat constellations, will enable the launch of fleets of space-based telescopes.
- timewizard 2y ago
  > fleets of space-based telescopes. Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people? > people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people". You've constructed a strawman for the purposes of gatekeeping; meanwhile, there very much is a reason to have a rational conversation about the trade offs of these large commercial ventures that impact literally the entire planet.
  - mrshadowgoose 2y ago
    > Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people? It doesn't, and admittedly I don't really care that much. I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet, one of the most transformative and enabling technologies in existence, than niche hobbyists being mildly encumbered. And most people likely fall into the same camp. As already mentioned, I find it really hard to believe that the common person whining about "the poor amateur astronomers" are being sincere. Some of them likely are, but "finding any reason possible to whine about billionaires" seems to be vogue these days.
    - timewizard 2y ago
      > I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet Then can you tell me how many remote communities were not being served before that are now suddenly capable of accessing the internet now that these particular constellations exist? I mean just looking at Starlink's current availability map shows how little you might actually care about this particular outcome. Even so was this the most affordable and sustainable option for these countries? Was there absolutely no way to achieve both goals at once? > I don't really care that much. Noted. We're just picking sides today, I guess. Bummer.

So more satellites to block the view for astronomers.

by croes 2y ago

So more satellites to block the view for astronomers.

Progress tends to have downsides. Highways and rail tracks destroy the environment and make areas hard to cross, but I think most people would acknowledge that on balance, having them them is a good thing. In this case, the obvious solution would be to provide a small number of orbital observatories to the astronomy community for free or with heavily subsidized pricing.

croes 2y ago
You could turn that around. Progress in Earth bound astronomy has the downside of less satellite internet.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  I'm fairly certain that Earth-based astronomy predates artificial satellites by at least a few years.
  - croes 2y ago
    And since then there was no progress? We can build better, bigger and more sensible telescopes but we can hardly use those new capabilities if they are impaired by satellites. Space telescopes are expensive and harder to maintain.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
What progress? I gain nothing from this. I have symmetrical cheap reliable fiber to my house.
- dboreham 2y ago
  I don't, so there's that.
- lxgr 2y ago
  You call that progress? I gain next to nothing from cheap reliable fiber being available at your house either.
- 93po 2y ago
  this reads really strongly as satire to the point i can't believe it's authentic. hacker news poster says "my cheap fiber is working just fine, why does anyone need satellite internet", completely ignoring the literally billion people who can't access the internet reliably at all due to infrastructure failures
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    My point was only that progress isn't so black and white. Oil drilling is progress too!
timewizard 2y ago
> but I think most people would acknowledge that on balance, having them them is a good thing. Of course it is. The next question is "is it a good thing to let a single owner completely control access to this resource?" We've actually decided in the case of highways and rails, that no, it's not. There needs to be reasonable and non-discriminatory access to these resources otherwise the trade is not worthwhile. We actually have laws that are meant to enforce this. > the obvious solution would be to provide a small number of orbital observatories to the astronomy community for free or with heavily subsidized pricing. Define the "astronomy community." Do we do first come first served or do we have a priority list? How do we handle disputes? Is it just US citizens or do we need to offer this to the entire world? What if the vendor fails to make good on their concessions? What sort of penalties should surround this system? There's really nothing "obvious" about this.
thrance 2y ago
Building a highways is not necessarily "progress". We really ought to stop calling "progress" the destruction of a natural habitat that we will never be able to rebuild, for the construction of a superflous road that will close in 15 years because of poor traffic anyway.
immibis 2y ago
If Jeff has the right to jam my telescope with his satellite due to the lack of regulation, do I have the right to jam his satellite with my telescope due to the same lack of regulation, or does it only work one way?

93po 2y ago

this is such a weird talking about that basically any real astronomer doesn't really care about, at all. it just comes across as "let's find any way to criticize elon possible" or "let's write clickbait based on a couple of terminally online comments on twitter". satellites are not blocking views, and astronomers are overwhelmingly in support of a healthy space industry, which includes satellite launches. the cutting edge of astronomy relies on satellites, it would be weird to be against them

mrshadowgoose 2y ago

I am entirely convinced that absent LEO comsat constellations, people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people". If you genuinely care about the field of astronomy, rest assured that the same falling launch costs that have enabled LEO comsat constellations, will enable the launch of fleets of space-based telescopes.

timewizard 2y ago
> fleets of space-based telescopes. Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people? > people who espouse this sentiment would likely be whining about "useless astronomy taking money away from helping poor people". You've constructed a strawman for the purposes of gatekeeping; meanwhile, there very much is a reason to have a rational conversation about the trade offs of these large commercial ventures that impact literally the entire planet.
- mrshadowgoose 2y ago
  > Isn't one of the nice aspects of astronomy is that you can do quite a bit as an amateur with some decent equipment and a nice vantage point? What value does this fleet have to these people? It doesn't, and admittedly I don't really care that much. I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet, one of the most transformative and enabling technologies in existence, than niche hobbyists being mildly encumbered. And most people likely fall into the same camp. As already mentioned, I find it really hard to believe that the common person whining about "the poor amateur astronomers" are being sincere. Some of them likely are, but "finding any reason possible to whine about billionaires" seems to be vogue these days.
  - timewizard 2y ago
    > I care far far more that remote communities can now have meaningful access to the internet Then can you tell me how many remote communities were not being served before that are now suddenly capable of accessing the internet now that these particular constellations exist? I mean just looking at Starlink's current availability map shows how little you might actually care about this particular outcome. Even so was this the most affordable and sustainable option for these countries? Was there absolutely no way to achieve both goals at once? > I don't really care that much. Noted. We're just picking sides today, I guess. Bummer.