In all honesty the benefits of a global satellite swarm dwarf the benefits of terrestrial astronomy, so while yeah it sucks that we have to choose, the choice is an easy one. Maybe we can get some...
In all honesty the benefits of a global satellite swarm dwarf the benefits of terrestrial astronomy, so while yeah it sucks that we have to choose, the choice is an easy one. Maybe we can get some funding to turn the dark side of the moon into an astronomy base instead.
Really? I'm all for the benefits which starlink will bring [so we are told]. But that's a pretty bold statement. There are alternatives in both situations. The alternative to starlink is to...
the choice is an easy one
Really?
I'm all for the benefits which starlink will bring [so we are told]. But that's a pretty bold statement. There are alternatives in both situations.
The alternative to starlink is to further invest in terrestrial fibre optic and/or cell towers where needed. Now that isn't a trivial task and has certain socio-economic factors to take into account. The technology is there, however.
The alternative to terrestrial astronomy you propose is to simply move it all to the opposite side of the moon?
The moon.
Oh hey, I'd love for that to be a possibility, don't get me wrong. But that's just completely beyond any current or near-future capability.
No, the alternative I have is to not simply do it at all, or to limit what is done to what is still possible under the reduced conditions with satellite swarms. Because it's precisely the...
The alternative to terrestrial astronomy you propose
No, the alternative I have is to not simply do it at all, or to limit what is done to what is still possible under the reduced conditions with satellite swarms. Because it's precisely the socio-economic factors that satellite swarms do enough for that it is a net benefit for humanity to lose all terrestrial astronomy in exchange.
That presumes a heavily weighted preference for internet as a "net benefit". Starlink is not an all-or-none solution; internet exists just fine without it. You don't need to put dozens of...
That presumes a heavily weighted preference for internet as a "net benefit". Starlink is not an all-or-none solution; internet exists just fine without it. You don't need to put dozens of megaconstellations of satellites in orbit to achieve internet, try starting with an improved regulatory body that doesn't get into bed with megacorporations and actively works for the people instead. Starlink is merely a bandaid over a festering wound; and as soon as Musk is dead and gone, and the company loses its culture (see Boeing), it'll be just another price-gouging megacorp that the global community let exploit the night sky.
I'm concerned about the impact to astronomy and I absolutely think that the regulators are allowing a risky project to go ahead with minimal oversight and consultation, but I do think that you and...
I'm concerned about the impact to astronomy and I absolutely think that the regulators are allowing a risky project to go ahead with minimal oversight and consultation, but I do think that you and @edenist are underestimating the possible upside.
This is a global project; you'd need a UN-level organisation with the will and funding to deploy fibre throughout deserts, war zones, impoverished and unstable states to come close to matching the social impact that truly global internet coverage can have. You'd have to deal with aggressive and conflicting censorship requirements from any number of different countries. Even then, you'd only be covering the land - no speed, cost, or coverage improvements for shipping and aviation.
Basically, imagine if GPS had to be rolled out country-by-country: it wouldn't be anything like the crucial piece of ubiquitous global infrastructure it is now. The potential impact of low cost, high speed satellite internet is in my opinion no less than that of GPS.
None of that changes the fact that I think Starlink is playing fast and loose with the rules and that the risks are too high to do so. It does mean that the international impact could be life changing for billions of people, and that's something worth doing. Properly. With the close oversight of regulators and experts from the disciplines that will be affected.
I wish I could agree that the "Internet exists just fine..." Right now, we have entire nations, e.g. Iran, Russia, China, and a variety of African dictatorships (Sudan, Gabon, etc.) which have the...
I wish I could agree that the "Internet exists just fine..."
Right now, we have entire nations, e.g. Iran, Russia, China, and a variety of African dictatorships (Sudan, Gabon, etc.) which have the power to unilaterally cut off and censor their citizens' access because they have control of the terrestrial link bottlenecks.
There is no enforceable, universal right of Internet communications access, any more than there's an effective international body to regulate the use of extra-terrestrial space.
For the Internet to "route around damage", we need non-terrestrial broadcast systems that can't be easily interfered with at the level of nation states or even multinational corporations.
While Elon Musk isn't exactly a heroic altruist for making another set of routes available, one that isn't subject to cutting transoceanic cables or insurmountable last-mile costs, we need StarLink or something like it for maintenance and growth of free, open societies.
Starlink's benefit isn't just the internet, it's getting the internet to places where it would never get to. There are regulatory issues preventing some of that, but in more cases, it's simply...
Starlink's benefit isn't just the internet, it's getting the internet to places where it would never get to. There are regulatory issues preventing some of that, but in more cases, it's simply physical issues. Who is going to run a fiber line to a remote village with 200 people in it? Who is going to fix it when it breaks? How much ecological disruption will the installation and maintenance of that line cause?
At this point, not having access to the greatest information tool ever created because of where you were born is no longer acceptable, and every other proposal to solve that issue falls short in some area (balloons), or is completely unfeasible (running fiber last-mile to every single human being on earth). Starlink is the best solution I've heard of in that regard. It sucks for astronomers, but forgive me if I don't shed a tear for a small group of extremely privileged people doing research that, while certainly interesting, doesn't actually improve human lives in the near term in any measurable way.
The impact of being connected to the rest of the world is huge, and it will undoubtedly improve and save lives.
I agree on the usefulness of Starlink and the importance of getting internet to remote areas, but while I don't personally know what trade-offs would be acceptable (or even necessary) this makes...
Exemplary
It sucks for astronomers, but forgive me if I don't shed a tear for a small group of extremely privileged people...
I agree on the usefulness of Starlink and the importance of getting internet to remote areas, but while I don't personally know what trade-offs would be acceptable (or even necessary) this makes it sound like the point of astronomy is to satisfy the whims and curiosities of the small group of "extremely privileged" people directly involved with research.
I think that's too dismissive. This isn't a situation where an elite few are losing access to their hobby, like aristocrats complaining they're not allowed to amuse themselves with fox hunting anymore, this is fundamental scientific research meant to benefit humanity as a whole. The direct benefits are difficult to argue (beyond basic things we already have like a calendar system, navigation, and the heliocentric model which let us figure out we could orbit artificial satellites in the first place) but I think there's something good in having answers to fundamental questions about our place in the universe other than "I guess God did it" or "shut up, nerd."
Sidenote
I'm also uncomfortable with the use of privilege here. Astronomers come from all backgrounds across the world and they go into the field knowing they'll have years of graduate school followed by precarious and low-paying work with only a chance at getting one of the very few stable and well paying jobs available to them, all so that they can do work they believe is important. And if we're going to use the notion of privilege as a bludgeon, how do we factor in the people involved in mining and manufacturing for the tech industry, those affected by downstream environmental factors, and the billionaires looking to profit from these networks? But, all that is maybe a bigger topic than could be dealt with in this thread.
One can easily imagine a world where this sentiment won out over researchers like Gallileo, Newton and Einstein who's work largely didn't directly benefit humanity for decades or centuries...
It sucks for astronomers, but forgive me if I don't shed a tear for a small group of extremely privileged people doing research that, while certainly interesting, doesn't actually improve human lives in the near term in any measurable way.
One can easily imagine a world where this sentiment won out over researchers like Gallileo, Newton and Einstein who's work largely didn't directly benefit humanity for decades or centuries afterwards. At least in that alternate universe we wouldn't have to listen to such misguided arguments, because we wouldn't be going to space to begin with.
We don't have to imagine it, because practical concerns have always had a higher priority than theoretical scientific research. It's not like people had to give up vaccines to enable Einstein to...
We don't have to imagine it, because practical concerns have always had a higher priority than theoretical scientific research. It's not like people had to give up vaccines to enable Einstein to develop the theory of relativity, or people had to stop sending their kids to school so that Galileo could make more star charts. The opportunity cost for enabling that research was extremely low. Continuing to bar hundreds of millions of the most impoverished people in the world from humanity's collective consciousness is not a low opportunity cost.
I wonder, would you decide to permanently shut down the internet in the country you live in if it meant a better view of the sky? That's what we're talking about here.
No, the basics of education, communication, and the benefits that come along with those. Where you are perhaps. And people said a moonbase was crazy...
That presumes a heavily weighted preference for internet as a "net benefit".
No, the basics of education, communication, and the benefits that come along with those.
internet exists just fine without it
Where you are perhaps.
try starting with an improved regulatory body that doesn't get into bed with megacorporations and actively works for the people instead
I agree, but it should definitely be treated as a Wikipedia-like entity first, since having potentially most of the poorest people in earth having their internet connections controlled by one...
In all honesty the benefits of a global satellite swarm dwarf the benefits of terrestrial astronomy, so while yeah it sucks that we have to choose, the choice is an easy one.
I agree, but it should definitely be treated as a Wikipedia-like entity first, since having potentially most of the poorest people in earth having their internet connections controlled by one corporation is a pretty huge risk and would give Elon global leverage over billions of people and moving all the infrastructure (and workers) in earth into space, and redesigning it for space, and maintaining it on space would be a huge cost, and not easy in the slightest. And no, we wouldn't 'get some funding' to turn the dark side into an astronomy base. It took a 110m rocket to get a small probe to the moon, imagine if it was all the telescopes on earth which would need to be transported all the way there and then maintained when there, and that's if you assume they're gonna be in orbit.
Well, being black only eliminates the problem of the satellites being visible to Earth observers, i.e. usually people. It doesn't stop the issue with trails being embedded over long exposure...
Well, being black only eliminates the problem of the satellites being visible to Earth observers, i.e. usually people. It doesn't stop the issue with trails being embedded over long exposure astronomy experiments, plus there are other wavelengths of light that are useful for astronomers on the ground too.
It briefly mentions it in a round-about way. It mentions the satellites are shiny, then has a quoted tweet from Elon Musk saying they're going to work on reducing the albedo (ie: reflectiveness)....
It briefly mentions it in a round-about way. It mentions the satellites are shiny, then has a quoted tweet from Elon Musk saying they're going to work on reducing the albedo (ie: reflectiveness).
Sky watchers are also finding that Starlink are more reflective then other satellites. If thousands of extra satellites weren't already a problem on their own, the fact they are extra-shiny is just another thing astronomers are pulling their hair out about.
Agreed, sent a note to Starlink team last week specifically regarding albedo reduction. We'll get a better sense of value of this when satellites have raised orbits & arrays are tracking to sun.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 27, 2019
They definitely could have phrased this differently, maybe reiterated the contents of the tweet for clarity.
In all honesty the benefits of a global satellite swarm dwarf the benefits of terrestrial astronomy, so while yeah it sucks that we have to choose, the choice is an easy one. Maybe we can get some funding to turn the dark side of the moon into an astronomy base instead.
Really?
I'm all for the benefits which starlink will bring [so we are told]. But that's a pretty bold statement. There are alternatives in both situations.
The alternative to starlink is to further invest in terrestrial fibre optic and/or cell towers where needed. Now that isn't a trivial task and has certain socio-economic factors to take into account. The technology is there, however.
The alternative to terrestrial astronomy you propose is to simply move it all to the opposite side of the moon?
The moon.
Oh hey, I'd love for that to be a possibility, don't get me wrong. But that's just completely beyond any current or near-future capability.
No, the alternative I have is to not simply do it at all, or to limit what is done to what is still possible under the reduced conditions with satellite swarms. Because it's precisely the socio-economic factors that satellite swarms do enough for that it is a net benefit for humanity to lose all terrestrial astronomy in exchange.
That presumes a heavily weighted preference for internet as a "net benefit". Starlink is not an all-or-none solution; internet exists just fine without it. You don't need to put dozens of megaconstellations of satellites in orbit to achieve internet, try starting with an improved regulatory body that doesn't get into bed with megacorporations and actively works for the people instead. Starlink is merely a bandaid over a festering wound; and as soon as Musk is dead and gone, and the company loses its culture (see Boeing), it'll be just another price-gouging megacorp that the global community let exploit the night sky.
I'm concerned about the impact to astronomy and I absolutely think that the regulators are allowing a risky project to go ahead with minimal oversight and consultation, but I do think that you and @edenist are underestimating the possible upside.
This is a global project; you'd need a UN-level organisation with the will and funding to deploy fibre throughout deserts, war zones, impoverished and unstable states to come close to matching the social impact that truly global internet coverage can have. You'd have to deal with aggressive and conflicting censorship requirements from any number of different countries. Even then, you'd only be covering the land - no speed, cost, or coverage improvements for shipping and aviation.
Basically, imagine if GPS had to be rolled out country-by-country: it wouldn't be anything like the crucial piece of ubiquitous global infrastructure it is now. The potential impact of low cost, high speed satellite internet is in my opinion no less than that of GPS.
None of that changes the fact that I think Starlink is playing fast and loose with the rules and that the risks are too high to do so. It does mean that the international impact could be life changing for billions of people, and that's something worth doing. Properly. With the close oversight of regulators and experts from the disciplines that will be affected.
I wish I could agree that the "Internet exists just fine..."
Right now, we have entire nations, e.g. Iran, Russia, China, and a variety of African dictatorships (Sudan, Gabon, etc.) which have the power to unilaterally cut off and censor their citizens' access because they have control of the terrestrial link bottlenecks.
There is no enforceable, universal right of Internet communications access, any more than there's an effective international body to regulate the use of extra-terrestrial space.
For the Internet to "route around damage", we need non-terrestrial broadcast systems that can't be easily interfered with at the level of nation states or even multinational corporations.
While Elon Musk isn't exactly a heroic altruist for making another set of routes available, one that isn't subject to cutting transoceanic cables or insurmountable last-mile costs, we need StarLink or something like it for maintenance and growth of free, open societies.
Starlink's benefit isn't just the internet, it's getting the internet to places where it would never get to. There are regulatory issues preventing some of that, but in more cases, it's simply physical issues. Who is going to run a fiber line to a remote village with 200 people in it? Who is going to fix it when it breaks? How much ecological disruption will the installation and maintenance of that line cause?
At this point, not having access to the greatest information tool ever created because of where you were born is no longer acceptable, and every other proposal to solve that issue falls short in some area (balloons), or is completely unfeasible (running fiber last-mile to every single human being on earth). Starlink is the best solution I've heard of in that regard. It sucks for astronomers, but forgive me if I don't shed a tear for a small group of extremely privileged people doing research that, while certainly interesting, doesn't actually improve human lives in the near term in any measurable way.
The impact of being connected to the rest of the world is huge, and it will undoubtedly improve and save lives.
I agree on the usefulness of Starlink and the importance of getting internet to remote areas, but while I don't personally know what trade-offs would be acceptable (or even necessary) this makes it sound like the point of astronomy is to satisfy the whims and curiosities of the small group of "extremely privileged" people directly involved with research.
I think that's too dismissive. This isn't a situation where an elite few are losing access to their hobby, like aristocrats complaining they're not allowed to amuse themselves with fox hunting anymore, this is fundamental scientific research meant to benefit humanity as a whole. The direct benefits are difficult to argue (beyond basic things we already have like a calendar system, navigation, and the heliocentric model which let us figure out we could orbit artificial satellites in the first place) but I think there's something good in having answers to fundamental questions about our place in the universe other than "I guess God did it" or "shut up, nerd."
Sidenote
I'm also uncomfortable with the use of privilege here. Astronomers come from all backgrounds across the world and they go into the field knowing they'll have years of graduate school followed by precarious and low-paying work with only a chance at getting one of the very few stable and well paying jobs available to them, all so that they can do work they believe is important. And if we're going to use the notion of privilege as a bludgeon, how do we factor in the people involved in mining and manufacturing for the tech industry, those affected by downstream environmental factors, and the billionaires looking to profit from these networks? But, all that is maybe a bigger topic than could be dealt with in this thread.One can easily imagine a world where this sentiment won out over researchers like Gallileo, Newton and Einstein who's work largely didn't directly benefit humanity for decades or centuries afterwards. At least in that alternate universe we wouldn't have to listen to such misguided arguments, because we wouldn't be going to space to begin with.
https://www.iau.org/public/themes/astronomy_in_everyday_life/#techtransfer
We don't have to imagine it, because practical concerns have always had a higher priority than theoretical scientific research. It's not like people had to give up vaccines to enable Einstein to develop the theory of relativity, or people had to stop sending their kids to school so that Galileo could make more star charts. The opportunity cost for enabling that research was extremely low. Continuing to bar hundreds of millions of the most impoverished people in the world from humanity's collective consciousness is not a low opportunity cost.
I wonder, would you decide to permanently shut down the internet in the country you live in if it meant a better view of the sky? That's what we're talking about here.
No, the basics of education, communication, and the benefits that come along with those.
Where you are perhaps.
And people said a moonbase was crazy...
Why do you think this kind of problem is easier to tackle than engineering problems like putting an observatory on the moon?
I agree, but it should definitely be treated as a Wikipedia-like entity first, since having potentially most of the poorest people in earth having their internet connections controlled by one corporation is a pretty huge risk and would give Elon global leverage over billions of people and moving all the infrastructure (and workers) in earth into space, and redesigning it for space, and maintaining it on space would be a huge cost, and not easy in the slightest. And no, we wouldn't 'get some funding' to turn the dark side into an astronomy base. It took a 110m rocket to get a small probe to the moon, imagine if it was all the telescopes on earth which would need to be transported all the way there and then maintained when there, and that's if you assume they're gonna be in orbit.
Main problem is they are shiny, SpaceX has already stated the future satellites will be painted black. This article omits that info.
Well, being black only eliminates the problem of the satellites being visible to Earth observers, i.e. usually people. It doesn't stop the issue with trails being embedded over long exposure astronomy experiments, plus there are other wavelengths of light that are useful for astronomers on the ground too.
It briefly mentions it in a round-about way. It mentions the satellites are shiny, then has a quoted tweet from Elon Musk saying they're going to work on reducing the albedo (ie: reflectiveness).
They definitely could have phrased this differently, maybe reiterated the contents of the tweet for clarity.