Scientists, looking deep into space, have long voiced their concerns that satellites are encroaching on their ability to study the cosmos.
This has been going on for much longer than Starlink.
There were a number of observatories built in or near cities. They became mostly useless once we figured out electric lights but we still use them for education sometimes.
SpaceX has been working with the NSF so they can continue to dim Starlink https://spacenews.com/nsf-and-spacex-reach-agreement-to-reduce-starlink-effects-on-astronomy/
Now we’re putting more and more observation capabilities deep into space. JWT is already getting images better than anything you could get on earth, even if you eliminated Starlink and turned off every light on the planet. Ground based astronomical observation is still relevant but we keep coming up with better alternatives.
-
Send 40k satellites to pollute low-earth orbit (and provide internet)
-
Develop rockets that would more affordably send payload above LEO
-
Push scientists to get funding and launch more telescopes above LEO
-
Profit.
Talk about demand generation…
LEO isn’t a marketing ploy, it reduces the latency inherent to traditional satellite technology which is in a much higher orbit. Starlink has taken off because it provides a much better user experience compared to the old school satellite options.
It sucks for astronomers but given governments and other companies are following their example, nobody is putting this genie back in the bottle.
In 10 years time Musk or someone like him will be sending sun dimming space umbrellas to “fix global warming”
That seems like it’s too plausible a terraforming option, how about just ‘popping’ the atmosphere a bit to let out a bit of the CO2.
ELI5 - why do satellites need to be bright? Do they have some kind of lights? Can’t they just be dark and beam internet around?
Thermal management is a huge issue for spacecraft. In atmosphere, the bulk of cooling for things like electronics would be convective, from transferring the heat into a fluid (air/water/etc) which then moves away with the heat. In space, you don’t have a fluid for convective cooling, so your cooling is all radiative - essentially just emitting infrared energy. This is far, far less efficient - you need much more material and surface area to get the same cooling.
Dark objects are better at radiative cooling… unfortunately, they’re also far better at absorbing radiative energy. Like the oodles of it coming out of the sun. That’s why dark objects are dark - they’re absorbing the energy. However, it also means that your thermal management is far more difficult because you’re absorbing a lot more heat. It can be worked around, but it makes the spacecraft larger and heavier, which is the antithesis of space work. So spacecraft have traditionally tried to reject as much absorbed energy as possible, which by definition makes them reflective.
They don’t have lights, but they reflect light from the sun at certain times of day. Another way to think about it: these satellite can be experiencing broad daylight hours after the sun has set at the surface. Similarly, when you’re seeing the Moon at night what you’re actually seeing is daytime on the Moon and it’s often enough to light up the landscape around you because you’re looking at an object that is experiencing daytime while you aren’t.
The question then becomes: can’t the satellite be made darker? And the answer is they are already pretty dark. The moon, for example, has an Albedo (measure of reflectiveness) of 0.15, which is similar to asphalt and it can still dominate a night sky. SpaceX satellites have an Albedo of about 0.11, so astronomers are essentially having to deal with thousands of tiny and unpredictable Moons drifting across the sky. I can’t find the article now, but I recall reading that the albedo would need to get down to 0.002 to become negligible; I just don’t see that happening.
They’re metal things sitting up there where the sunlight hits them. What you’re seeing is the sun reflecting off them. Its like how you can look up and see a plane all bright and in the sun even at dusk when its starting to get dark on the ground.
I do wonder how much the average people commenting would care if musk had nothing to do with this.
It’s an issue, but it’s an issue scientists knew was coming for decades now. Starlink isn’t the only company putting satellites into low earth orbit. They aren’t the first and the amount of them will just keep coming.
What we need is regulations and requirements for how many, what purpose, how they’ll be dealt with if something goes wrong and when they’re no longer needed, etc. Getting people to share satellites that are already there (when possible) and not putting up satellites that are redundant or don’t provide that much benefit versus non-satellite options or further orbit options will be important.
But all these mindless circlejerkers only talking about musk and wanting starlink “taken down” are really polluting the topic with meaningless bullshit. It’s unfortunate people are bringing these mindless circlejerks over from reddit.
LEO shouldn’t be some billionaire playground to make even more money. The Kessler syndrome is a very real threat to our future
So we just shouldn’t have high speed sattelite internet for people in rural areas or disaster areas because some people make money from it?
Or they should only be there if a government runs the sattelite? Because that wouldn’t change the effect they have on telescopes.
This is the kind of comment I was talking about.
I agree, if it wasn’t Musk there wouldn’t be so much hate most probably, starlink is objectively good for all the people living in rural zones (in some cases just outside of big cities) where internet doesn’t arrive because other companies don’t want to spend the money for it.
There’s plenty of companies that do rural internet. They’re called WISPs (wireless ISPs). Usually small business owners willing to get more customers.
We would give free internet to more than a few farmers willing to let us mount on a silo or elevator. We put up a backhaul, access point, and give them a connection. Free internet for the land owner, we expand our territory, win/win. Then the neighbors just point a link at the AP and we charge them.
Only real requirement is line-of-sight. Towers can reach far. Existing structures usually work, otherwise they can sometimes erect a small tower.
I’ll do ya one better than that.
Because of existing telecom networks its nearly impossible for new fiber companies to do any work in large to medium cities in the US. Even Google couldn’t do it because Comcast/Spectrum/TW wouldn’t allow them to lay cable. In areas not already served by the big ISPs though there’s nearly no red tape. Sandy, Oregon (pop 12,000) laid a municipal fiber network for $30/month. This guy in Michigan said fuck it after he couldn’t get anything laid to his house and built his own ISP.
The actual sane take. I swear musk is constantly living rent free in way too many peoples minds.
Honestly, what I took from this is we should have more telescopes that operate outside of the orbits of commercial satellites.
That’s what scientists have wanted anyway, even without the occasional satellite there is a lot of interference. I wouldn’t be surprised if they leveraged this to try to get more funding for more of them they wouldn’t get otherwise.
