The title is honestly a bit misleading. Making the satellites less reflective doesn't change the fact the satellites are still there, which is the main issue with these megaconstellations. You're...
The title is honestly a bit misleading. Making the satellites less reflective doesn't change the fact the satellites are still there, which is the main issue with these megaconstellations. You're still going to get star trails in sensitive optical instruments, you're still going to get random occultations, there's still going to be debris collisions which render entire shells of orbit inoperable, they're going to make mistakes and lose satellites in high orbit before they are able to deorbit them, they're still covering the night sky with impunity.
It's insane how trivially easy it is for a company with dedicated resources to simply paper-stuff their submission for a satellite constellation through without sufficient regulatory oversight and input from 99% of people who are concerned.
If this was comcast, would people be so pleased? What's worse is that I've seen some muskrats try and promote a "well, now you can launch a space telescope easily" defence. Which is literally the most insane thing I've ever read.
Yes, it's pretty silly the arguments we see some people make. How do we avoid getting sucked into it like them? I think it's good to keep in mind that on most subjects, we are just semi-informed...
Yes, it's pretty silly the arguments we see some people make. How do we avoid getting sucked into it like them?
I think it's good to keep in mind that on most subjects, we are just semi-informed people reading the news. You read something in the news and think "hmm, that seems bad? Why are they doing that?" And it's natural for people to immediately pick sides and cheerlead for their side. In extreme cases this results in "instant expert syndrome" where people who didn't know much about some subject yesterday suddenly start pretending they know all about it.
I try to lean the other way. My rule of thumb is: keep the question open. Remain curious.
So, here is a good question: "Is what SpaceX is doing bad for astronomy?" Instead of answering it in a split-second and immediately taking a side, how about we keep it open for a while?
Followup questions: what problems are happening for astronomers? Why didn't this seem like a problem at first? Are there feasible workarounds?
I don't know the answers to these questions yet. But I saw an interesting comment on Hacker News that added some context and raised further questions. I'd be interested in reading more.
One of the Starlink satellites in the next batch of 60 that SpaceX plans to launch in late December will be treated with a special coating designed to make the spacecraft less reflective and less likely to interfere with space observations [...]
The experimental coating that would make the satellite less reflective could affect its performance, so that is something that will be examined, said Shotwell. “It definitely changes the performance of the satellite, thermally. It’ll be some trial and error but we’ll fix it.”
The title is honestly a bit misleading. Making the satellites less reflective doesn't change the fact the satellites are still there, which is the main issue with these megaconstellations. You're still going to get star trails in sensitive optical instruments, you're still going to get random occultations, there's still going to be debris collisions which render entire shells of orbit inoperable, they're going to make mistakes and lose satellites in high orbit before they are able to deorbit them, they're still covering the night sky with impunity.
It's insane how trivially easy it is for a company with dedicated resources to simply paper-stuff their submission for a satellite constellation through without sufficient regulatory oversight and input from 99% of people who are concerned.
If this was comcast, would people be so pleased? What's worse is that I've seen some muskrats try and promote a "well, now you can launch a space telescope easily" defence. Which is literally the most insane thing I've ever read.
Yes, it's pretty silly the arguments we see some people make. How do we avoid getting sucked into it like them?
I think it's good to keep in mind that on most subjects, we are just semi-informed people reading the news. You read something in the news and think "hmm, that seems bad? Why are they doing that?" And it's natural for people to immediately pick sides and cheerlead for their side. In extreme cases this results in "instant expert syndrome" where people who didn't know much about some subject yesterday suddenly start pretending they know all about it.
I try to lean the other way. My rule of thumb is: keep the question open. Remain curious.
So, here is a good question: "Is what SpaceX is doing bad for astronomy?" Instead of answering it in a split-second and immediately taking a side, how about we keep it open for a while?
Followup questions: what problems are happening for astronomers? Why didn't this seem like a problem at first? Are there feasible workarounds?
I don't know the answers to these questions yet. But I saw an interesting comment on Hacker News that added some context and raised further questions. I'd be interested in reading more.
From the article: