Megaconstellations could destroy astronomy and there's no easy fix

[Admin]

Global satellite-based high-speed internet access will come at a cost, polluting the skies and contaminating astronomical observations.

Megaconstellations could destroy astronomy and there's no easy fix : Read more

 

[sam85geo]

Off Earth and orbiting above the money making megaconstellations may be a solution which could further Astronomy and Cosmology. AND, the Chinese have set the gourmet standard for Space Stations. No more Tang powdered orange juice and freeze dried plant based roast beef. Just a genuine selection of World Class gourmet Chinese dishes, complete with rice wine and real soy.

 

[DanIAm]

Astronomers don't own the skies, though it is incumbent on the satellites, space stations and other stuff to be good neighbours and have some effort put into low reflectivity.

For amateurs, the satellites won't generally be an inconvenience and they'll enjoy the benefits of these satellites for other areas of their life. But for large observatories, their best future is to get off of earth, away from birds/butterflies/planes/clouds/humidity/heat haze - and the launches of all of these satellites builds a space economy that makes launches of observatories economical.

 

[Catastrophe]

We seem agreed in principle. Even for amateurs, if getting access to off-world 'scopes is possible, let the atmosphere-space polluters have their way. I long ago gave up going out on cold winter nights to peer through my telescopes, but, then, in my case, it is a matter of age.

Cat

 

[DanIAm]

We seem agreed in principle. Even for amateurs, if getting access to off-world 'scopes is possible, let the atmosphere-space polluters have their way. I long ago gave up going out on cold winter nights to peer through my telescopes, but, then, in my case, it is a matter of age.

Cat

Public observatories based in space (or dark side of the moon etc) would be brilliant.

 

[sam85geo]

Astronomers don't own the skies, though it is incumbent on the satellites, space stations and other stuff to be good neighbours and have some effort put into low reflectivity.

For amateurs, the satellites won't generally be an inconvenience and they'll enjoy the benefits of these satellites for other areas of their life. But for large observatories, their best future is to get off of earth, away from birds/butterflies/planes/clouds/humidity/heat haze - and the launches of all of these satellites builds a space economy that makes launches of observatories economical.

I equate the proliferation of communication and megasattellites to the "forest" of tangled telephone and other pole mounted transmission lines often seen in mega-crowded neighborhoods in 3rd world countries. Rapacious businesses and tax greedy governments do not own the skies either. But where money, lots of money, is to be made, the natural environment gets short shrift in favor of despoiling, degrading and even destroying the natural wonder of our environment. I do like the concept of off Earth astronomy; however, I can live with "spotty" even awful cell phone service especially when robo calls trying to sell me assorted crap, and the wife's "can you pick up such and such at the store" calls can not get connected. For me as a curmudgeon, uninterrupted by trivia self-time is important.

 

[AlbusRockets]

Astronomers don't own the skies, though it is incumbent on the satellites, space stations and other stuff to be good neighbours and have some effort put into low reflectivity.

For amateurs, the satellites won't generally be an inconvenience and they'll enjoy the benefits of these satellites for other areas of their life. But for large observatories, their best future is to get off of earth, away from birds/butterflies/planes/clouds/humidity/heat haze - and the launches of all of these satellites builds a space economy that makes launches of observatories economical.

Nor do the corporations "own the skies".

For millennia astronomy has been a ubiquitous endeavor; practiced by the poor and rich alike. Used to determine harvest times and the coming of seasons or to ponder life's great mysteries.

To restrict this humbling pursuit in order to line the pockets of the ultra-wealthy is unfathomable.

As for the satellites not "generally be[ing] an inconvenience" to amateur astronomers, have you asked an amateur astronomer/astrophotographer if that is true?

For me, and to the many that I know, it is not.

Imaging through the streaks, even in remote areas, has become a challenge.

Lastly, as to a future in which one (amateurs and professionals alike) must rely on orbital telescopes to study the night sky, this too holds major flaws.

For one: if the proliferation of mega constellations increases to a point where visual astronomy is impossible, we will also have likely reached a point where sending spacecraft through the debris-field will also be increasingly problematic.

And two: even if the theoretical orbital telescope does make it through the LEO traffic jam, people will then be beholden to owners of the telescopes, likely the same corporations that created the overcrowding issue in the first place, to search for meaning, peace, or scientific knowledge in the cosmos.

In short, corporations are knowingly creating another problem, for which their products (which we must, of course, pay them dearly for) will be the only solution.

Such is the history of corporations on the Earth, and so it seems is the future of corporations in space.

 

[DanIAm]

Albus, your reply puts a few matters on the table, I'll respond over a few posts as I think there are a few discussion points on the whole issue, I'd love more people to chime in.

1. Equity.

Astronomy loves to leave the city. Clubs often locate themselves or take trips into the closest hills to block light pollution and get away from smog. The best astronomy is done in really remote places, away from light and other interferences if possible, high above most moisture issues (clouds, etc) etc. Astronomy as a consequence loves communications poor areas. But it shares vast amounts of data via good communications and has the audacity to be telling communications poor areas that they can't have communications satellites.

Astronomy might be inconvenienced by satellite mega constellations (particularly while bound to earth), but is not going to be seen universally as more important than the daily education, business and social interactions of millions of others. Particularly in the digital age as satellite tracks can be removed from images.

Equity is a two way thing. I did say it was incumbent on the space industry to do their best to be good neighbours. Low reflectivity, Only delivering payloads and not leaving behind faring's and other junk, mandatory deorbiting at end of life. These and other things need to be agreed to in principal by all actors, the sooner the better. The ISS is visible with the naked eye, we could end up with hundreds of objects of that size and bigger and much sooner than people think, the moon itself will have a base this decade courtesy of NASA's Artemis program, I gather that the China/Russia moon base is 2031? Any base on the sunny side will definitely reflect light and they'll be many times larger than a comms satellite.

 

[DanIAm]

2. Amateur Astronomy.

I do take the odd look through a tube, it is not that I don't care for astronomy. But satellites do not make much of a difference for amateur astronomy in general. If I'm tracking Mars for 20 minutes, the numbers of satellites going through that small, particular piece of sky is negligible and quick, 10 times more satellites will scarcely make a difference. The bigger issue is light pollution and no one is sending a cease and desist letter to light globe manufacturers.

Yes, it is a nuisance for astrophotography, the streaks stand out. For digital a nuisance is not the same as killing the hobby, as software effectively goes a long way to rectifying many images.

https://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_2020_04/picturemessage_knd5os2u_uni.thumb.png.055c813eb6337a6f5976a463376c9114.png

vs
"Here is the same data stacked to remove satellite trails and other garbage, it's processed a little, but there's no trace of any satellites because they are rejected during stacking because their trails are seen as outlier pixels "

https://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_2020_04/Screenshot_121.png.fd5f1967a01cb34691ee38d923d58c4b.png

While perfect night skies are obviously a nice thing, Astrophotography as shown by picture 2 is still perfectly viable, it just needs extra steps.

 

[DanIAm]

3. Scientific Astronomy

even if the theoretical orbital telescope does make it through the LEO traffic jam, people will then be beholden to owners of the telescopes, likely the same corporations that created the overcrowding issue in the first place

LOE is big, there is no traffic jam to get through it even with a million satellites. Is there space junk, yep, but that's a different discussion, but active satellites send tracking data (the commercial ones at least) and they have fuel for trajectory changes, they are not an issue.

Astronomy isn't a profitable business, the owners of big telescopes will still be governments and research institutions. For astronomy, every day of the week and twice on Sundays, Hubble is astounding and will soon be overtaken by the mind blowing James Webb when it's launched. Space is where it's at for observation. Observatories on Earth already rent themselves out online, you'd think that a university telescope in Space would also rent itself out as an income stream, I don't see that as terrible, that income helps fund the research.

Hubble was put up when the cost was 57,000 USD/kg for shuttle launches. Current prices (driven down by satellite competition) are under $5,000/kg and possibly, Starship can take it down as low as $10/kg. $10/kg means that universities and others can put instruments into space and that it is not only an occasional NASA (or other major government) initiative. That includes interesting places to put things such as the James Webb - which is going to the L2 earth-sun la Grange point, observatories on the dark side of the moon and other places become a possibility.

Or, we could yell at the clouds to get off the lawn, not have a competitive space market and have 1 telescope launched every 30 years and astronomy is the worse in that scenario. The route for science to affordably access space is with launch costs coming down, the satellite market is the current driver for that.

 

[sam85geo]

An interesting discussion folks and cogent points made. As for "Equity"? That's really a financial term especially within the context of this discussion. The economic principle is "harm" done to a third party". As such we are talking eventual government regulation or compromise which is infinitely more preferable than the former. Just for giggles consider that this escalating controversy is akin to having one's mother-in-law live with your family full time or part-time and opting for neither is not possible. So part-time, (or compromise), seems the best choice. Now negotiate; (perhaps a separate addition for "Momzer" with electrified fence and moat being optional, depending on how shrill the wife becomes). Thus, I favor affordable, public accessible orbiting observatories.