Doesn't prevent the issue of optical telescopes being able to see them, but at least for RF telescopes it should solve that problem
Given that in reality starbase has negligible tangible impact on the wetland, the whole concern seems overblown to me.
How do you justify that amount of environmental destruction by a single organization like SpaceX in context of the tragedy of the commons?
the wildlife of a wetlands that undergoes a drought has a chance to spring back once reintroduced to water.
the wildlife of a wetlands that is chemically poisoned will not spring back to life without either lots of time or remediation efforts.
'on the box' both situations look the same : no wildlife -- but they're not.
The reasons matter, more data than just statistical prevalence is needed here in order to assess the damage realistically in the attempt at scoring man-made disaster against natural disaster.
If I were to put an upper limit on it, it would probably be 100x that.
As for justification, I think that the common value of the local habitat is miniscule, and the common value of SpaceX is immense.
some small number of people use the wild refuge for bird watching and the like, meanwhile SpaceX internet provides millions of people access to education, telemedicine, employment, and/or entertainment. Further development will help advance global Astronomy and encourage space exploration.
Do you think that it is possible that the destruction of some distant ecological system could destroy this one? And by extension do you think that it is possible that the destruction of this system could destroy another one?
There would be some consequences, but within limits. The earth wouldnt stop spinning and explode. There would likely be some marginal impact to migratory birds and local fishery, but it wouldn't cause mountainous in Tibet to go extinct or anything like that.
Anyways, Costal wetlands usually change constantly under natural conditions. Most of our static wetlands are already extremely unnatural, because cities and states have gone to great lengths to modify them in some ways and keep them from changing. They are about as natural as central park or a zoo.
I see it the same way as if someone was holding up building a hospital because of an anthill, while children died waiting.
They're not that important anyway. Oh wait.
I find the recent religious switch towards worship of nature somewhat disconcerting, even though I like nature in general.
But one particular short stretch of Texan shore vs. space abilities of humanity as a whole doesn't seem a balanced problem to me. Starlink saves Ukrainian lives in battle and can save other lives in distress. It can also make countless human lives more comfortable, and a lot of businesses viable or more profitable. It is not a 'cool toy', it is one of the upcoming communication backbones of the planet, and it even protects some natural lands from being dug up, because it doesn't need laying of long cables across the wild.
I just cannot see how this could be considered as important as convenience of a few sea birds, who, if they are bothered by the launches, can fly a few miles away and be content again. After all, there is abundant wildlife around Cape Canaveral after 60 years of intense space activity - it is not as if rocket launches are a horrible Holocaust of all living things around. Nature adapts to changes. It always had.
Wildlife in 'catastrophic decline' due to human destruction, scientists warn - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048
Spaceflight isn't anywhere close to, say, mining, when it comes to its negative effects on nature, not even 1 per cent as bad. And we still cannot simply ban mining if we want to continue our civilization.
However, my comment was really to provide context for some of the sweeping statements you were making, e.g.
> I find the recent religious switch towards worship of nature somewhat disconcerting... > ...a few sea birds, who, if they are bothered by the launches, can fly a few miles away and be content again... > Nature adapts to changes. It always had.
If you want my two cents, I think people are turning to nature because:
1. It's threatened with virtual annihilation by the externalities of our hegemonic economic system. 2. Many people have to deal with their (natural) human nature being ground down as they are forced to file off their rough edges to fit into the position of cogs in an uncaring economic/totalitarian machine. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people feel relatively powerless to do much about their internal personal situation, but see that analogous processes are destroying the natural world outside of themselves and feel that's something worth fighting for too.
It’s been game changing for a few friends and family. Perhaps the science missions may be game changing to their great grandchildren but that’s gonna be a tough sell to many.
The interference cited in this article appears to be on a much longer wavelength and is likely due to the larger electronics payloads on each satellite (flight computers, routers, "cloud servers", misc DoD payloads, etc). The cost to mitigate this may be quite expensive, in terms of time, cost and payload mass.
Fundamentally there is a tension between a scientific community that is concerned about interference and a business in which revenue may be correlated with keeping orbiting Ku transmitters powered up as often and as cheaply as possible. This is unfortunate as there is some interesting science that may be observed at these wavelengths.
This article is not about their main transmitters, they're saying that they detected EM interference from their electronics: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2024/09/aa51856-...
What is surprising is that they claim that Starlink violates CISPR limits
Imagine someone walking through a log exposure photography shot. You can filter out the frames or pixels with some extra work.
Im not an expert in digital radio astronomy, but my understanding is that data is generally sampled at a high rate.