Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

leonarddavid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 197 posts

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#31

Post by marcosdumay »

ketralnis wrote: post #21
marcosdumay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the future of astronomy is in space. If the satellites don't disrupt it, light pollution will anyway, or best case, it will be disrupted by atmospheric pollution. There's no lack of clear skies in space.

A: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, B & C would B: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, A & C would C: yeah we're hurting you but if we didn't, A & B would I guess it’s nobody’s fault then

A lot of people really want A & B. Way more than how many want your work.

But well, any one is free to go fight the tide.

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#32

Post by delichon »

bmitc wrote: post #27
delichon wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX built the biggest constellation to date, and is using the profits to build Falcons while designing Starships. Check out the resulting cost per kilo to orbit: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cost-space-launches-low-e... That's pretty good for theory.

The theoretical part is whether that's actually useful for not. Cost per kilo to orbit doesn't magically solve astronomical observation problems.

Don't Chandra, Webb and Hubble, et. al. sufficiently prove the usefulness?

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#33

Post by [deleted] »

delichon wrote: post #22
Cacti wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this something we have evidence for, or is this just in theory?

SpaceX built the biggest constellation to date, and is using the profits to build Falcons while designing Starships. Check out the resulting cost per kilo to orbit: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cost-space-launches-low-e... That's pretty good for theory.

[deleted]

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#34

Post by throw_pm23 »

Havoc wrote: post #13

As much as I sympathize this feels like a necessary evil to me in a sense vaguely accerlationism like. I do think starlink can do more to help the situation though. Sure they tweaked some of the satellites to minimise it, but they could do more. Presumably the know the precise location and orientation of each sat. Surely that can be packaged into a data stream that helps unfk the images? Maybe with a sprinkling of th…

When you are driving towards a wall or a cliff you don't necessarily want to accelerate.

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#35

Post by jonplackett »

runeofdoom wrote: post #24
jonplackett wrote: post #9

Is this a bit of a temporary problem, in the the very technology causing the issue - substantially cheaper access to space - will presumable ultimately put a frikkin massive telescope, or many massive telescopes into orbit where they’ll also not have to deal with the many other issues ground telescopes have to deal with. I get that this still sucks for any individual with a Telescope though.

It's not just "any individual with a telescope" though. It's stuff like the Simonyi Survey Telescope, a set to map the southern sky down to below 27th magnitude that's in trouble.

How would a telescope like that compare to Webb or Hubble in its capability? Eg, if we had to trade the loss of that for many Webb scale telescopes, or presumably something much much bigger once starship can start launching - is that worth the trade?

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#36

Post by oh_my_goodness »

bmitc wrote: post #30
oh_my_goodness wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard enough that some people are putting up satellites instead. EDIT: Say there's some way to put in fiber at $10k per km. Even then, ten million users at 1km per user makes $100 billion.

To me, these are capitalistic solutions looking for problems. It's the whole startup mentality. Let's just throw a bunch of shit in space and see if it ends up being useful for anything. This idea of connecting the world is as false as the other hundred millions times that's been sold.

Yeah, fair. Just because stuff is expensive doesn't mean it's worth anything.

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#37

Post by lumost »

_dain_ wrote: post #28
bmitc wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That needs some citations. The James Webb Telescope's mirror is 6.5m in diameter. It took decades and billions of dollars of overruns and a prayer to launch and work correctly. There is no hope of most hardware repairs. That mirror size pails in comparison to what can be accomplished via ground based observatories for much, much cheaper. And the available modes of operation are completely different between space and…

> That needs some citations. The James Webb Telescope's mirror is 6.5m in diameter. It took decades and billions of dollars of overruns and a prayer to launch and work correctly. There is no hope of most hardware repairs. Because it had to get launched folded up, because the launch vehicles were so space- and mass-constrained. The unfolding mechanism was enormously complicated and added to much of the cost. Now we ca…

Back of the envelope math would suggest that 8-10 JWTs could be launched in a single starship flight making for an impressive telescope array.

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#38

Post by Retric »

mercutio2 wrote: post #20
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future of astronomy is both on the ground and in space. There are so many things that you can only conceivably do from the ground. You can build vastly larger telescopes on the ground, you can install far heavier instruments (like cameras and spectrographs) on them, you can upgrade and repair components much more easily. You can build massive arrays of radio telescopes. You get the point. There are some things yo…

Are there really a lot of ground based telescope components larger than Starship's fairing? I'm just not seeing the argument for there being any telescope function that wouldn't be better done in orbit, at Starship payload prices.

Yes, though I guess it depends on what you mean by lots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflec.... Critically the 30+m monsters under construction have only recently become feasible on the Earh let alone in space, and much smaller instruments still provide significant value today.

There’s a much longer list of large radio based telescopes which have minimal advantages in space to the point where we haven’t launched any, and they are also negatively impacted by constellations. Also, several types of observations don’t really benefit from being in space. If you want to track killer asteroids space doesn’t provide much advantage even if you could get there for 100$/kg.

IMO the issue here isn’t satellites, it’s that they can harm multi billion dollar investments at zero cost to themselves. If you’re very clearly causing 10’s of millions in damages you really should be compensating the people affected.

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#39

Post by digging »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #6
tetris11 wrote: post #2

I know it's a blessing for people who live out in the sticks to have internet.... but is that really such a large use-case to justify entire fleets of these things? How hard is it to run km of wire from the nearest town? To me, these were built for the sole purpose of surveillance, and internet is an afterthought. Edit: yes yes it's expensive, but the easiest solution the world came up with was for some guy to invest…

> How hard is it to run km of wire from the nearest town? If it's not hard, why hasn't it happened already?

(in the US) It may be hard for a new company but easy for existing telecom giants. But existing telecom giants don't give a shit about national internet infrastructure quality, so if connecting rural customers simply appears less profitable* than focusing on current operations[1], they won't do it.

[1] Current operations include the obviously profitable "send monthly marketing materials via mail, email, and live salespersons to homes who canceled your services the day they had an alternative," among other idiotic practices.

Re: How bad are satellite megaconstellations for astronomy?

#40

Post by trothamel »

30 years ago, it was possible to be lost - not because you wanted to be, but because you had no way of figuring out where we are. GPS and other GNSS networks have solved that problem.

It used to be possible to not have high-speed internet, and now high-speed Internet is available everywhere in the world that has an amenable government.

Right now, it's possible to be in a location where it's impossible to call for help. In a few years, when LTE-in-space is available and the 911 mandate applies to it, anyone with a charged phone will be able to get contact.

SpaceX has been working to mitigate how its satellites affect astronomy - see https://api.starlink.com/public-files/BrightnessMitigationBe... and https://new.nsf.gov/news/statement-nsf-astronomy-coordinatio... .

But fundamentally, to limit space to astronomy will be to limit the benefits it can give all mankind. a

Post reply on HN