Astronomers will have to get used to this. If we ban these for such nonsense reasons, it will be Chinese satellites blocking their view.
Creating a livable planet is not easy, but nationalistic thinking makes it a hundred times harder.
I'd go with #1.
2. I'd go with #2.
3. Even if #1 is right, jumping to the conclusion that Musk's project is a good idea is a complete non-sequitur. As far as I know, no one has argued that putting 10000 satellites into space is the only way to provide widely available cheaper internet. As you can see from discussions elsewhere in the thread, it's not likely to even do that. Will SpaceX provide service to China?
You mean..."Science"?
Meanwhile, what kind of useful science do you think can be facilitated by globally accessible high-speed internet? The value generated by such a network is clearly orders of magnitude more useful than observing the cosmos, at this juncture of human endeavor. Not too mention that Starlink will allow SpaceX to re-invest more and more money into space launches / space travel. I'd much prefer humans actually visit other celestial bodies rather than just staring at them.
Is this Hacker News? This is the type of nonsense I expect on the NYTimes comment section.
> I'd much rather have humans enjoy nature than writing about it on the internet.
Why are you here instead of enjoying nature?
Astronomy is nice too, but I will choose the internet every time, if forced to choose. We have wonderful images of the whole sky in all kinds of spectrum in incredible resolution.
Starlink means you can be doing research in the middle of the Amazon and have good internet. Antarctica. Middle of the ocean. Wherever. Sure, population centres are all connected to the internet by now, but that's really not what I'm talking about.
Also, a good way to make internet cheaper (so that those in poverty have access) is to provide more alternatives to access / competition.
Likewise, those in poverty living far from population centres (by the way, those are the places with most of the people) are better served by being gifted 10 bricks so they can build an actual stove.
It's built for whoever gets utility out of it and will pay for it, those "noble cases" included. It's not for them, but it enables them.
The internet can tell you how to build a better stove, farm better, raise animals better, discourage you from barbaric rituals that don't actually have the effect you believe them to have, etc. Arguably the poorest, most ignorant of the world are the same people that need the knowledge the internet can provide the most.
Internet access gives you access to actual knowledge. Yes, it also gives access to fake news and farmville, but I think those latter concerns are less important when you are having sex with babies to make your AIDS go away.
That doesn't really answer my question though, but that's probably my fault for using a word as subjective as "useful", so let me rephrase:
How has astronomical knowledge of the CMBR/Big Bang/Black Holes/Pulsars/Galaxies/etc. fundamentally improved the human condition? What specifically have we been able to do (not "know") that we would not have been able to do without terrestrial astronomy?
In the last 100 years, advances in particle physics have been aided by our study of high-energy mechanisms in the universe (nuclear fusion in star systems, supernovae, acceleration of the expansion of the universe, etc.)..
so you have internet thanks, in part, to astronomy..
what a silly comment..
Ditto for everything else on that list. We made discoveries by looking at things and performing experiments here on earth and then realized that these things must be what is causing X and Y out in the cosmos.
The first major breakthroughs for understanding nuclear fusion came because we wanted to understand what powered the Sun and Stars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion
.. and these events began 100 years ago.
Part of what you say is true, we make discoveries by looking at things.. Astronomy gives us more things to look at, and in energy regimes that cost many $$ to replicate in experiments on Earth..
Without Einstein's E = mc^2, Arthur Eddington would not have realized that the fusing of nuclei could power the sun. In other words, he realized that fusing two atoms would release a lot of energy thanks to terrestrial research, and then hypothesized that this is what must power the sun. He did not come to this theory from staring at the sun through a telescope. Astronomy clearly did not lead to fusion - atomic theory did, which did not come from astronomy.
And neither did Einstein formulate E = mc^2 because he was an avid astronomer who wanted to understand the sun.
I am well aware this happened more than 100 years ago, not sure why you would be under the impression that I thought otherwise or needed to hear that for some reason.