Astronomers urge FCC to halt satellite megaconstellation launches

[Admin]

Over 100 astronomers from leading U.S. universities have signed an open letter calling for an assessment of potential impacts of satellite megaconstellations on Earth's environment.

Astronomers urge FCC to halt satellite megaconstellation launches : Read more

 

[Darklurker]

Better late than never, I suppose...

 

[Classical Motion]

Too late now.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The FCC could only halt U.S. megaconstellations. So, we would still have constellations of satellites from other countries, including China, Russia, maybe Europe, maybe India.

So, unless there is at least a UN based treaty to not launch megaconstellations, the U.S. would just be shipping more of our technological base to other countries. And, without some means of enforcing a UN treaty, it could still prove useless for achieving a no-megaconstellation result.

Probably more feasible to try to get agreement on things like reflectivity and frequency leakage rates to at least minimize the undesirable effects.

But, given the amount of plain "light pollution" that continues to increase on the ground, decades after it was identified as wasteful, I don't have much hope for avoiding the orbiting analog.

 

[Classical Motion]

We need to put our detectors on the far side. It's the only quiet and clear space left.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

We need to put our detectors on the far side. It's the only quiet and clear space left.

Agreed.

But, building infrastructure on the far side of the Moon is going to take some time. I would not expect something better than Webb there before 2040, and that is optimistic. And, it will be expensive to maintain and operate.

And, part of the infrastructure will probably involve Moon-orbiting satellites for positioning and communications around the Moon to Earth, so still not totally quiet.

 

[24launch]

Avi Loeb has lost nearly all credibility in the scientific community with his crazy obsession with Aliens and claims of fact with zero evidence, so using him has a primary source for yet another one of Ms Pultarova's "The sky is falling / satellites are destroying the planet / stop SpaceX at all costs" articles really doesn't help her argument.

Loeb claims that "Godlike aliens may be creating universes in labs":

Harvard Professor Says Godlike Aliens May Be Creating Universes in Labs

Harvard alien-hunter Avi Loeb posited that superhuman aliens could be building universes in labs and that his haters are just "jealous."

futurism.com

In 2014 Loeb claimed that spherules found at the bottom of the ocean were created by aliens:

The humiliating truth behind Harvard astronomer’s alien spherules

Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb claimed to track down and find alien spherules on the ocean bottom. The sober truth is an utter embarrassment.

medium.com

In 2017 he has claimed that the strange cigar-shaped interstellar object named Oumuamua was unequivocally created and sent by an extra solar alien intelligence:

Astronomer Avi Loeb Says Aliens Have Visited, and He's Not Kidding

In conversation, the Harvard University professor explains his shocking hypothesis—and calls out what he sees as a crisis in science

www.scientificamerican.com

Sure, it's one thing to have an open mind but not so open your brains fall out and unfortunately it appears that absolute obsession had caused this once brilliant scientist to lose his sense of rationality and abandon the very scientific principles he once cherished.

And as Unclear Engineer pointed out, the US is not alone with building out Satellite megaconstallations, something Ms Pultarova frequently leaves out from her anti-SpaceX "articles".

 

[fj.torres]

The FCC could only halt U.S. megaconstellations. So, we would still have constellations of satellites from other countries, including China, Russia, maybe Europe, maybe India.

So, unless there is at least a UN based treaty to not launch megaconstellations, the U.S. would just be shipping more of our technological base to other countries. And, without some means of enforcing a UN treaty, it could still prove useless for achieving a no-megaconstellation result.

Probably more feasible to try to get agreement on things like reflectivity and frequency leakage rates to at least minimize the undesirable effects.

But, given the amount of plain "light pollution" that continues to increase on the ground, decades after it was identified as wasteful, I don't have much hope for avoiding the orbiting analog.

Europe is a certainty.
Russia is a probably not and China is yes for now but no certainty after 2030.
India will be a regional yes.

Thing is, if the pundits stop SpaceX and Amazon, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil, Australia and several other countries will still be able to hire somebody to build them a regional constellation. They absolutely need one. And if they can't sign up to a commercial/international one, they'll need a national one.

The fact is the tech is too valuable, too reliable, and too cheap to wave off.

And even if the activists manage to stop Starlink and Kuiper, they'll never stop Starshield.
Suck it up folks, the djinn is not going back into the bottle.

What they need to be looking at is using Starship to build a network or three around the Lagrangians using Interferometry telescopes. Don't even need to go to the moon for that.

Look forward, not back.

 

[James Parker]

Since when are astronomers the preeminent experts on climatology? I understand how megaconstellations will hinder astronomy. Clearly, the benefits outweigh this unfortunate side-effect. It sounds like astronomers know this and some are trying to pull in the far-more-serious matter of ozone depletion to bolster their case. However, we would need to check with climatologists. If it's real, then we'll need deal with it internationally for reasons others have stated.

24Launch brought up a good point: Tereza Pultarova is trying to disrupt this trend through her journalism. Half of her recent articles are devoted to various "dangers" of megaconstellations. I'm not sure she's being fair to the industry.

 

[monkeyonmars]

I like taking astrophotos and don't mind the streaks. Of course my livelyhood does not depend on photographing the sky. Realistically, it isn't going to stop. So get Musk to launch us a lot of space observatory satellites mounted with smart telescopes, he owes us.

 

[Classical Motion]

Lagrangians? Do you mean Lagrange Points? There are much higher, much farther away than the moon.

But it would gives us a much larger base line than any on the Moon.

 

[Classical Motion]

And have a highly reflective, glowing, noisy source of Earth in the middle of that base line.

 

[fj.torres]

Lagrangians? Do you mean Lagrange Points? There are much higher, much farther away than the moon.

But it would gives us a much larger base line than any on the Moon.

They are all accessible with current tech, to say nothing of Starship v3, and don't require a lunar landing or (very expensive) construction project on farside.Lunar radio telescopes, yes. But for optical and near optical frequencies free flyers will be best.

Note that JWST is already orbiting L2 so we have already started using the Lagrange points properly. Distance is not the constraint but rather getting it off the mudball in the first place.

Orbit - NASA Science

science.nasa.gov

 

[Unclear Engineer]

There is also the issue of accessibility for maintenance and repair, If we are going to start using the Lagrange points for telescopes, we will need space craft that can take humans (maybe really advanced robots) there to work on them there. Maybe even construct them there.

There were a lot of fingers crossed and prayers sent as the Webb Telescope lifted off and even more so when it went through its unfolding and aligning processes.

At least being able to build the thing in space, so that it does not have to automatically unfold after coming out of a restrictive launch fairing as a complete device, could lead to better, larger, more reliable instruments.

I suppose they could be built in low earth orbit from components launched in multiple rockets, but there is still the need for fuel to maintain positions at the Lagrange Points. Somebody, or something (some robot?), should be provided as means to refuel and refurbish whatever we send to Lagrange points.

And some method should be provided for effectively removing things from the Lagrange Points when they are no longer in use. Yes, I know the Lagrange Point orbits are dynamically unstable, but that doesn't mean that some long unused piece of space junk's orbit around the Sun can't pass through them - lets plan ahead properly, now, before we create the problem.

 

[fj.torres]

There is also the issue of accessibility for maintenance and repair, If we are going to start using the Lagrange points for telescopes, we will need space craft that can take humans (maybe really advanced robots) there to work on them there. Maybe even construct them there.

There were a lot of fingers crossed and prayers sent as the Webb Telescope lifted off and even more so when it went through its unfolding and aligning processes.

At least being able to build the thing in space, so that it does not have to automatically unfold after coming out of a restrictive launch fairing as a complete device, could lead to better, larger, more reliable instruments.but there is still the need for fuel to maintain positions at the Lagrange Points. Somebody, or something (some robot?), should be provided as means to refuel and refurbish whatever we send to Lagrange points.And some method should be provided for effectively removing things from the Lagrange Points when they are no longer in use. Yes, I know the Lagrange Point orbits are dynamically unstable, but that doesn't mean that some long unused piece of space junk's orbit around the Sun can't pass through them - lets plan ahead properly, now, before we create the problem.

All of that is well within the scope of existing tech.
What it needed is is the will and cheap enough launch capacity.
The same applies to solar power satellites and deep space probes.
We just need to stop spending hundreds of millions on single use boosters and literally gold-plating satellites to fit them into tiny fairings.

Or billions on ground based observatories that are capable than a single orbital telescope. We could do far more science for less money above LEO. And the way the global economy is moving the big bucks are going to dry up. Already are to an extent. Mars return and VIPER aren't the only the only old space missions to die in the next few missions.

Browning got it exactly right; "...a man's reach should exceed his grasp..."
And civilizations, too.
Decadence lies down the other road.

 

[James Parker]

I like taking astrophotos and don't mind the streaks. Of course my livelyhood does not depend on photographing the sky. Realistically, it isn't going to stop. So get Musk to launch us a lot of space observatory satellites mounted with smart telescopes, he owes us.

You can book a launch right here! https://www.spacex.com/rideshare/

Afraid this is the price of progress, sir. At least we have a way to get more telescopes up there with better economy.