6 ms·

Lots of things interfere with astronomical observations - if someone builds a house, it'll interfere with their neighbors observing a star close to the horizon.

Lots of things interfere with astronomical observations - if someone builds a house, it'll interfere with their neighbors observing a star close to the horizon. Especially since the observations appear to be outside the protected spectrum, the answer is "that's probably okay". There's balancing that needs to be done - does the safety benefit of a world in which nobody can be out of contact of emergency services, and the economic benefit of having reasonably high speed internet available everywhere, outweigh the loss of radio astronomy potential. I think it probably does.

TimorousBestie 1y ago
> There's balancing that needs to be done - does the safety benefit of a world in which nobody can be out of contact of emergency services, and the economic benefit of having reasonably high speed internet available everywhere, outweigh the loss of radio astronomy potential. If this balancing argument is merely based on short-term economics, then of course the corporation always wins. Every commons becomes a tragedy in that world.
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  Exactly, thank you! There is also a huge safety benefit in killing all wild animals, and companies are even happy to build taxable businesses for that if allowed. This needs to be evaluated and balanced against the economic benefit of having wild animals roam the planet free of charge... /s
- zamadatix 1y ago
  There are existing regulated bands for astronomy, which already shows the regulatory bodies don't just consider short term gains. The person you quoted weighs it against outweighing the loss of radio astronomy potential, saying much of the same. Who is this note about needing to compete with short term economic gains responding to?
perihelions 1y ago
The long-term balancing is whether humanity can take over Earth's orbit and build out advanced technology there, or not. I think in the long run, radio astronomy is the one that will have to bend. If your receiver is so sensitive it's intolerant of stray EMI from a circuit board in outer space, there's no reasonable way to adapt to that—it's unreasonable to ask an entire planet to turn into a radio-quiet zone over its entire orbital shell. Intentional broadcasts are one thing—that's what spectrum licensing regulations are for. Minor EMI is a bridge too far. Further context: the signal strengths they're talking about are equivalents of isotropic emitters in the *milliwatt* power range, detectable down to the microwatts—detectable at ranges of thousands of kilometers, https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-23/aa47654-23.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-... ("Detection of intended and unintended emissions from Starlink satellites in the SKA-Low frequency range, at the SKA-Low site, with an SKA-Low station analogue") > "The flashes reach a maximum intensity of approximately 10^6 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼500 km (EIRP ∼ 30 mW) and a minimum intensity of approximately 2000 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼2000 km (EIRP ∼ 1 mW)" Further context: part of the EMI isn't a fixable circuit design issue—it's (I understand) EMI from normal operation of ion thrusters, > "The authors have been in communication with SpaceX (who owns, builds, and operates the Starlink constellation), who explains that this radiation is likely due to the satellites’ propulsion or avionics system and is likely over 50–200 MHz (SpaceX 2023, priv. comm.) The propulsion system is actively engaged during the time this train is detected. This radiation is therefore in the class of UEMR."
- rickdeckard 1y ago
  > If your receiver is so sensitive it's intolerant of stray EMI from a circuit board in outer space [...] Well, that's what is required to receive a weak signal from beyond that circuit board, from outer space. > there's no reasonable way to adapt to that You'd be surprised what becomes reasonable and possible once a requirement is set. > it's unreasonable to ask an entire planet to turn into a radio-quiet zone. Noone is asking that. It's reasonable to require radio interference of a device to stay within defined boundaries. This is the case in all other industries as well, why shouldn't it suddenly apply for a fleet of satellites which blast radio signals from outer space to earth?

TimorousBestie 1y ago

> There's balancing that needs to be done - does the safety benefit of a world in which nobody can be out of contact of emergency services, and the economic benefit of having reasonably high speed internet available everywhere, outweigh the loss of radio astronomy potential. If this balancing argument is merely based on short-term economics, then of course the corporation always wins. Every commons becomes a tragedy in that world.

rickdeckard 1y ago
Exactly, thank you! There is also a huge safety benefit in killing all wild animals, and companies are even happy to build taxable businesses for that if allowed. This needs to be evaluated and balanced against the economic benefit of having wild animals roam the planet free of charge... /s
zamadatix 1y ago
There are existing regulated bands for astronomy, which already shows the regulatory bodies don't just consider short term gains. The person you quoted weighs it against outweighing the loss of radio astronomy potential, saying much of the same. Who is this note about needing to compete with short term economic gains responding to?

perihelions 1y ago

The long-term balancing is whether humanity can take over Earth's orbit and build out advanced technology there, or not. I think in the long run, radio astronomy is the one that will have to bend. If your receiver is so sensitive it's intolerant of stray EMI from a circuit board in outer space, there's no reasonable way to adapt to that—it's unreasonable to ask an entire planet to turn into a radio-quiet zone over its entire orbital shell. Intentional broadcasts are one thing—that's what spectrum licensing regulations are for. Minor EMI is a bridge too far. Further context: the signal strengths they're talking about are equivalents of isotropic emitters in the *milliwatt* power range, detectable down to the microwatts—detectable at ranges of thousands of kilometers, https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-23/aa47654-23.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/10/aa47654-... ("Detection of intended and unintended emissions from Starlink satellites in the SKA-Low frequency range, at the SKA-Low site, with an SKA-Low station analogue") > "The flashes reach a maximum intensity of approximately 10^6 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼500 km (EIRP ∼ 30 mW) and a minimum intensity of approximately 2000 Jy beam^−1 at ranges of ∼2000 km (EIRP ∼ 1 mW)" Further context: part of the EMI isn't a fixable circuit design issue—it's (I understand) EMI from normal operation of ion thrusters, > "The authors have been in communication with SpaceX (who owns, builds, and operates the Starlink constellation), who explains that this radiation is likely due to the satellites’ propulsion or avionics system and is likely over 50–200 MHz (SpaceX 2023, priv. comm.) The propulsion system is actively engaged during the time this train is detected. This radiation is therefore in the class of UEMR."

rickdeckard 1y ago
> If your receiver is so sensitive it's intolerant of stray EMI from a circuit board in outer space [...] Well, that's what is required to receive a weak signal from beyond that circuit board, from outer space. > there's no reasonable way to adapt to that You'd be surprised what becomes reasonable and possible once a requirement is set. > it's unreasonable to ask an entire planet to turn into a radio-quiet zone. Noone is asking that. It's reasonable to require radio interference of a device to stay within defined boundaries. This is the case in all other industries as well, why shouldn't it suddenly apply for a fleet of satellites which blast radio signals from outer space to earth?