It's time to speak out against unchecked growth of satellite mega constellations

We can't avoid altering nature, especially when we expand our capabilities, which in turn lets us learn more about it. It's like quantum mechanics. Our act of observation affects the world.

And anyway, satellite constellations don't stop us learning about the universe. We can put telescopes in space. They're better than terrestrial telescopes! It's fine. We'll be okay, especially in the long run.

Please remember that change is only bad if it's change for the worse. Change in itself isn't bad.

More subtly: Change can make things worse for certain individuals, those with "night sky photography" as a hobby, or individual researchers working with solely with terrestrial telescopes. The motorcar was terrible for buggy whip makers too!

> I assume the majority of people in "industrialized states" haven't seen milky way with naked eyes if they cannot afford traveling to very remote areas (me included, despite I have a PhD in astrophysics, which makes me technically a grey-haired astronomer).

You really don't have to go that far, even from the most light-polluted places. Simply driving outside of the "greater city borders" will get you a more than good enough view to experience the awe.

> The big question is: Will the shift to orbit exclude a big part of mankind from participating? Capitalism most likely days "yes" and this is, in fact, a tragedy.

Satellite constellations in no shape way or form affect amateur astronomy, other than the "pretty pictures" aspect, and there's workarounds for that too.

It does upset professional astronomers, but I'm betting they'll adapt in the same manner that they've figured out workarounds for everything else. I suspect they'll end up using something like video capture and "median of 'n' frames" digital post-processing to filter out the satellites. Even space telescopes have to filter out noise due to radiation and the like! It's the nature of science.

I don't want this to come across the wrong way, but fundamentally: science never was "democratic", doesn't (really) pretend to be so, and especially modern science can't possibly be anything other than the plaything of very rich nation-states.

Historically, science was done by the wealthy. Lords, and the like.

These days, science is done with budgets in the millions or billions, especially astronomy where bigger and better telescopes are the name of the game.

I don't accept criticism of "global internet coming down from space" because it might stop someone from doing astronomy that is so poor that they can't even drive a few hundred miles to get a better view of the sky! They're not going to meaningfully contribute, no matter how noble their effort.