11–20 of 93 posts
On the bright side: each new satellite launch should lower the barrier to entry for the next satellite launch. This combined with growing competition in the space industry could lead the way to commercially viable spaceflight. There's so much opportunity for off-planet industry, it'll be pretty exciting to see where all of this leads.
Is this really a worry? Won't all the gear eventually be moved off Earth and into space making this argument pointless? I'm guessing amateurs with a telescope in their backyard are the ones suffering?
* Many experiments and a lot of science cannot be done from space, even if delivery costs were much cheaper. E.g. LSST (0.5 billion in US funding alone, + lots of other funding sources), or wide-field astronomy important for near earth object detection and monitoring (e.g. ASASSN). These things are too complex and too large to realistically do in space.
* Ground-based astronomy is inherently cheaper (no space costs, no extra engineering effort, and importantly, the ability to fix things and upgrade equipment), and therefore has a much lower barrier to entry. You can do truly meaningful research from the ground for ~$1 mill + a team of 4 or 5 core people, whereas space requires 10-100x this + an entire fleet of people with all of the associated bureaucratic nightmares + extra time required and engineering challenges. Space offers some benefits, but often times the tradeoff is either not worth the cost, or the experiment is not feasible to do in space.
* Regardless of whether or not you care about the impact on astronomy research (hey, astronomers care about humanitarian stuff too), the way SpaceX bowled through and just started launching their Starlink constellation was irresponsible, reckless, and actually quite ignorant (e.g. they were surprised by how bright their satellites were...this is basic stuff people). On the other hand, I'm not sure how much blame you can really place on a company being reckless when the law allows for such recklessness. There should absolutely be more regulation and oversight. It's in the governments' best interest because it's going to just destroy (needlessly) a lot of R&D already paid for.
Ninja edit: mentioned Space-X in here but this article is technically about Amazon's Kuiper constellation; however statement is the same (this isn't really a single company problem, this is a new-technology-without-appropriate-regulations-problem). Starlink is the largest constellation and the biggest problem (planned to have ~10x the satellites as the Kuiper constellation, they are lower orbit than anything else, and not sure how the albedo compares to Kuiper, but the brightness is > 99% of other satellites).
So: these constellations will multiply number of orbiting satellites by 10-100x, they are extremely bright (> 99% of all satellites), and they are very low orbit. So its a perfect storm of problems for astronomy.
final ninja edit: check out https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~gbakos/satellites/ to see one astronomer's page about this stuff, some actual images that illustrate how big the problem is with the extremely limited amount of starlink satellites currently in orbit, and some other links. OK that's all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't do this here.
Do what? Point out the petulance and inconsistency of astronomers?
If you'd please not create accounts to do that with, we'd be very grateful. I'm sure you can express your views thoughtfully and substantively if you choose.
This is about spending a few dollars more to have them properly painted.
Think about this, Musk and Bezos are saving a few cents. In exchange of astronomy.
Most important point everyone forgets to mention: this is NOT about having the tech or not. We have artificial satellites for a very long time. This is about spending a few dollars more to have them properly painted. Think about this, Musk and Bezos are saving a few cents. In exchange of astronomy.
Other satellites are reflective, too. It's difficult to make a satellite completely dark, in part because dark = absorbs heat and it's hard to dump heat in space.
The problem with these internet constellations is that, to work, they have to have thousands of them in each constellation. SpaceX has permission for 12k and is seeking permission for 30k more (https://spacenews.com/spacex-submits-paperwork-for-30000-mor...).
It's a little baffling how monstrously big Amazon has become over the years. Pretty soon there won't be an industry left untouched by Amazon's tentacles. Hard to see how they can continue down this path without getting broken up. On the bright side: each new satellite launch should lower the barrier to entry for the next satellite launch. This combined with growing competition in the space industry could lead the way…
At least, that's the way I see it. They've added new competition in so many areas. They've saved the consumer so much money that the federal reserve literally blamed them for lowering inflation, but instead, the federal government as painfully ironic as it is, views Amazon as the bloated overreaching organization.
It's a little baffling how monstrously big Amazon has become over the years. Pretty soon there won't be an industry left untouched by Amazon's tentacles. Hard to see how they can continue down this path without getting broken up. On the bright side: each new satellite launch should lower the barrier to entry for the next satellite launch. This combined with growing competition in the space industry could lead the way…
It's regrettable and bitterly discouraging that the more Amazon works toward improving mine and millions of others daily lives, the closer they get to being broken up. At least, that's the way I see it. They've added new competition in so many areas. They've saved the consumer so much money that the federal reserve literally blamed them for lowering inflation, but instead, the federal government as painfully ironic a…