Hacker News Reader

Comment by vikramkr | Hacker News Reader

Is it worth protecting ground based astronomy here though? Obviously the science is immensely important, but so is the internet, I dont buy this idea about the lack of consensus being an issue. Certainly the scientists should have had their say, and perhaps this should have been put up for a more public debate before the project was initiated, but I don't think that the go ahead to the project should be contingent on consensus from the scientific community. It should be contingent on approval from a regulatory body that is appointed/controlled in some democratic way and reflects the will of the population, and if the benefits to society outweigh the risks, then it should get the go ahead regardless of consensus by astronomers.

View on HN

>I don't think that the go ahead to the project should be contingent on consensus from the scientific community.

Something that could have immense impact on astronomy, the interest of the population in the cosmos, and a permanent change to the night sky shouldn't have some consensus, at least morally?

>It should be contingent on approval from a regulatory body that is appointed/controlled in some democratic way and reflects the will of the population,

Do those exist, much less in the current US administration?

>and if the benefits to society outweigh the risks, then it should get the go ahead regardless of consensus by astronomers.

...unless there is a way to accomplish the same thing for 99% of the population that is better implemented or doesn't affect the sky.

I dont think that they should have veto power, or that there is an inherent moral responsibility. That doesnt mean that I think starlink is justified, there should have been more debate and to tour point I certainly dont believe that the current regulatory standards were sufficient. What I believe is that it is up to astronomers to make their case to the public (starlink had plenty of advance notice) about why it is important to stop starlink, and that if the public is not convinced, there is no obligation to have any sort of consensus, moral or otherwise, from astronomers before launching. They don't own the sky any more than SpaceX does. The same point you made for the value of space based internet applies to the astronomers as well - do they need ground based telescopes or would space based telescopes be equally capable without affecting the sky by shutting down attempts to increase internet access and provide better connectivity via satellite? Obviously, both sides want the night sky for their own use, and if there is no way that a constellation of satellites will not interfere with astronomy, then both groups need to make their case. And if society decided astronomy was more important than space internet, I would be equally unopposed to shutting down these sorts of projects without the consensus of the companies investing in them. We do absolutely need a better regulatory framework though.

Possibly unpopular opinion: no, I don't think it's worth protecting ground-based astronomy. I could be wrong, but the majority of the important visual/IR astronomical observations from the last decade seem have come from space-based instruments, not ground-based ones. We need to put more instruments in orbit, not worry about fundamentally limited ones on the ground.

Additionally, this seems to me like an overall positive effect for the public at large. Being able to see satellites zooming across the sky is pretty cool, provides educational opportunities beyond what normal stargazing offers, and reminds people that there's something to aspire to (and look forward to) beyond what's on the ground.

I recall reading about how 5g might interfere with weather forecasting and hurricane tracking, that's the kind of reason that would be compelling to me to stop the satellites (such as if we need ground based telescopes to detect asteroid threats), but unless there is some ground based telescope use case that needs to be ground based and can't be done better with satellite anyway, then perhaps we should be having a different conversation: should we in fact be directing more funding towords satellites to get better space telescopes in the air and simultaneously improve research while future proofing against the inevitable filling of the night sky by satellites as launch costs continue to come down?

While obviously we're making more advanced measurements with space-based instruments, the value of the night sky for the average human cannot be overblown. Many people don't know what they're missing, having never lived outside of broad scale light pollution. While I don't think we necessarily need to worry about all ground-based telescopes, I do think that the average person being able to look at the sky and see the stars is something we should never give up on.

I agree with this sentiment 100%. Looking up at the sky and seeing a massive chains of satellites would be a lot like finding piles of trash along a hiking trail.

The thirty-meter telescope [0] will be ground-based and adjust for atmospheric distortions with adaptive optics.

It will have 144 times the light-collecting area of Hubble. Nice graphic comparing the new generation of extremely large telescopes here: [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Meter_Telescope

[1] https://en.es-static.us/upl/2018/04/comparison-telescope-mir...

AFAICT this would affect even casual stargazers, not just astronomers.

In the sense that, yes, you can see satellites in space. As a casual stargazer myself, spotting satellites is one of the fun parts of stargazing.

Spotting satellites can be fun, but seeing dozens of them at all times (which is what the article claims) would be rather unpleasant.

The article is incorrect. Most of the satellites will be in very low orbits (340km) such that past astronautical twilight, you won't be able to see them except near the horizon (and even then only if you're near astronautical twilight) as they won't be sun lit. And even in astronautical twilight, you'll only be able to see about a dozen or so under good conditions. The higher orbit satellites will be less bright.

On a really dark sky near astronautical twilight, you can already usually see a few satellites in orbit, and some are far brighter.

We're becoming a spacefaring species. That's exciting, and part of it means we'll be able to see more satellites.

It's worth noting that the original tweets grossly exaggerated this problem. I think it's worth trying to minimize albedo of the satellites, but this was a completely predictable result that was obvious from the first minute anyone discussed a large LEO constellation (seeing as we already have satellites). I don't know why it took so long for the astronomy community to actually bring it up. Perhaps because the initially deployed satellites flared a lot in their pre-operational condition, but I'm a little disappointed in how fast a lot of mistruths of this situation traveled around the internet.

Given that a large number of people reported them as UFOs, it seems likely that they're fairly visible.

Personally, I'd find this a nuisance, not a source of excitement. I find it unfortunate that, when trying to enjoy nature, we are so completely unable to escape evidence of human habitation and technology.

They were much brighter and closer together right after deployment than in operation. Already, they've spread out and are now aligned in operational configuration so they're far less noticeable than at first. On par with typical satellites. I spotted them night before last, and it was difficult to see them.

As far as being able to detect evidence of human habitation and technology, that has been the case since the beginning of the Space Age. Choosing to find it a nuisance is, of course, a personal choice, not really something anyone can argue with you about.

That sounds awesome IMO.

The importance society places on something can be judged by how much money it's willing to spend on it.

The NSF budget for astronomy is $250M/year.

Revenue projections for Starlink reach as high as $50B/year.

Astronomy isn't limited to the US and the NSF is not the only funding agency in the US. Sure, the annual cost isn't $50B/year, but that's a shitty metric to use, it is textbook tragedy of the commons.

It properly captures what populations, acting through their governments, think of the importance and value of astronomy.

It doesn't capture the value of individuals looking up and seeing stars. But I suspect the continued migration to highly illuminated cities shows that value isn't very high either.

The global market for ice cream is already $60B/year.

Your point? If the world had to choose between astronomy and ice cream, it would choose the latter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com