Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy

[eeergo]

Important to note that megaconstellations will support a great deal of commercial activity.  Anybody who is a target customer of these services knows this well.  The vast majority of the economic value will be captured by non-billionaires, so Frogstar_Robot's critique of eeergo's focus on billionaires seems particularly apt.

Oh such a big IF, and so at odds with historical precedent. And if it won't?

Not sure I understand this reply.  Could you please elaborate?

I mean it's a big IF megaconstellations will indeed offer the vast majority of the economic value to non-billionaires or those directly associated with them - hence my (mostly rhetoric) question about what happens to the aptness of your quoted critique if your premise fizzles out or otherwise doesn't turn out that way. That critique anyway focused on the supposedly small role of billionaires in megaconstellations, a strange claim to say the least.

[RedLineTrain]

I mean it's a big IF megaconstellations will indeed offer the vast majority of the economic value to non-billionaires or those directly associated with them - hence my (mostly rhetoric) question about what happens to the aptness of your quoted critique if your premise fizzles out or otherwise doesn't turn out that way.

Why would it fizzle out?  The vast majority of the economic value in megaconstellations going to non-billionaires is obvious because the vast majority of those benefits accrue to the megaconstellation customers rather than the owners.

[edzieba]

Important to note that megaconstellations will support a great deal of commercial activity.  Anybody who is a target customer of these services knows this well.  The vast majority of the economic value will be captured by non-billionaires, so Frogstar_Robot's critique of eeergo's focus on billionaires seems particularly apt.

Oh such a big IF, and so at odds with historical precedent. And if it won't?

Not sure I understand this reply.  Could you please elaborate?

I mean it's a big IF megaconstellations will indeed offer the vast majority of the economic value to non-billionaires or those directly associated with them - hence my (mostly rhetoric) question about what happens to the aptness of your quoted critique if your premise fizzles out or otherwise doesn't turn out that way. That critique anyway focused on the supposedly small role of billionaires in megaconstellations, a strange claim to say the least.

They're broadband telecomms systems. Unless they intend to operate a $50-million-a-month-super-rich-guys-only-instagram, then they need to offer mass market broadband telecomms services or they go bust (even existing telecomms constellations - e.g. Iridium, Orbcomm - rely on large volumes of small contracts rather than a handful of large ones). And in that case, the remaining concern is drumming up enough funds to command a controlled constellation deorbit, which handily solves both the optical and RF astronomy problems.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, I just don’t get that argument. If Starlink is a huge hit with vast parts of the world population (millions of people), it will fail. There aren’t millions of billionaires.

[eeergo]

Yeah, I just don’t get that argument. If Starlink is a huge hit with vast parts of the world population (millions of people), it will fail. There aren’t millions of billionaires.

Where have I said such a thing? Obviously that would be the "what if everything works as advertised" scenario, not the "what if it doesn't pan out" one. In any case, most of the recent conversation has more to do with the business model of megaconstellations as *the* way to compensate their environmental damages, which I think is pretty off topic for this thread, particularly when the initial critique I answered to just pretended extremely wealthy and influential individuals weren't the main current promoters of such systems.

[Mackilroy]

Yeah, I just don’t get that argument. If Starlink is a huge hit with vast parts of the world population (millions of people), it will fail. There aren’t millions of billionaires.

Where have I said such a thing? Obviously that would be the "what if everything works as advertised" scenario, not the "what if it doesn't pan out" one. In any case, most of the recent conversation has more to do with the business model of megaconstellations as *the* way to compensate their environmental damages, which I think is pretty off topic for this thread, particularly when the initial critique I answered to just pretended extremely wealthy and influential individuals weren't the main current promoters of such systems.

If it doesn't pan out, the megaconstellations in low orbits (such as Starlink and Kuiper) will deorbit in a few years, leaving behind little or no mess to annoy astronomers. If the government-backed constellations don't pan out, short of active debris removal their defunct satellites will annoy astronomers for many years to come.

In my opinion, it doesn't matter if wealthy and influential people are heavily promoting satellite Internet. It's not as if they came up with the concept, nor is it as if it's a net negative to society on the whole. It seems as if you want a perfect solution, when at best we'll just get a differing set of tradeoffs. I don't think anyone here is pretending they don't, but to argue they're the main current promoters is to ignore everyone who is not a wealthy billionaire who are *very* interested in having better Internet access, such as the Hoh tribe: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-helps-native-american-hoh-tribe/

[Lar]

... when the initial critique I answered to just pretended extremely wealthy and influential individuals weren't the main current promoters of such systems.

I warned about polemics. I didn't name any names in particular first time, hoping that a word to the wise would suffice.

Second warning. Get off this trail. Technical aspects only, not rants about the rich. Even obliquely as in what I quoted. The defenses of the rich are also off topic but presumably if the polemics stop, the backlash stops too. 

[eeergo]

... when the initial critique I answered to just pretended extremely wealthy and influential individuals weren't the main current promoters of such systems.

I warned about polemics. I didn't name any names in particular first time, hoping that a word to the wise would suffice.

Second warning. Get off this trail. Technical aspects only, not rants about the rich. Even obliquely as in what I quoted. The defenses of the rich are also off topic but presumably if the polemics stop, the backlash stops too. 

Alright, if basic facts such as who owns megaconstellations can't be stated without calls to self-censorship, while some attempt to advance the baseless idea that the problem with those systems is, if any, due to government action, and when several times I've stated to those who pushed the topic forward that this is actually off topic for the discussion at hand, other than to answer the possibility of purely financial reparations (proposed by another person) - then I assume anything critical with megaconstellations is deemed overly polemic, while even repeated explicit insults go unchallenged for the other side, as I have explicitly warned about.

My OP only contained a tweet with a single sentence critical with billionaires, which got blown out of proportion (while the rest of the post, by reputed experts, was ignored) by those bending over backwards to show megaconstellations are blemishless - so it's certainly puzzling how the "backlash" can wait to stop until the bad, bad polemicists do first.

[RedLineTrain]

eergo, the lazy thinking in that tweet deserves some backlash here.  Even just focusing on who owns the systems, the majority (for Starlink) and the vast majority (for Kuiper) will benefit non-billionaires.  Like teachers in Ontario once they start receiving their pension.  Like normal holders of retirement investment accounts.  Maybe half the posters on this thread will benefit as owners.

[Lar]

... when the initial critique I answered to just pretended extremely wealthy and influential individuals weren't the main current promoters of such systems.

I warned about polemics. I didn't name any names in particular first time, hoping that a word to the wise would suffice.

Second warning. Get off this trail. Technical aspects only, not rants about the rich. Even obliquely as in what I quoted. The defenses of the rich are also off topic but presumably if the polemics stop, the backlash stops too. 

Alright, if basic facts such as who owns megaconstellations can't be stated without calls to self-censorship, while some attempt to advance the baseless idea that the problem with those systems is, if any, due to government action, and when several times I've stated to those who pushed the topic forward that this is actually off topic for the discussion at hand, other than to answer the possibility of purely financial reparations (proposed by another person) - then I assume anything critical with megaconstellations is deemed overly polemic, while even repeated explicit insults go unchallenged for the other side, as I have explicitly warned about.

My OP only contained a tweet with a single sentence critical with billionaires, which got blown out of proportion (while the rest of the post, by reputed experts, was ignored) by those bending over backwards to show megaconstellations are blemishless - so it's certainly puzzling how the "backlash" can wait to stop until the bad, bad polemicists do first.

"One single critical sentence"[1] started a massive diversion into politics that has derailed the thread (and enabled the anti SpaceX folk to latch onto it while blithely ignoring other constellations). You were warned. Twice now and this is the third warning.

You know I do not like to delete things unless my hand is forced. You're forcing my hand.

You know I don't countenance arguing about moderation, and yet, here you are.

Stop. Third warning. I will start throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we don't return to the technical aspects.

People taking the bait need to stop taking the bait too.

Further discussion of mod actions will be deleted summarily. I'll be asking other mods to give this a look too.

1 - if I take my mod hat off and put my reader hat on.... one sentence???  that's a laughable claim, you clearly have a lot of unexpressed disdain and anger about the rich that comes out in your word choices.

[eeergo]

eergo, the lazy thinking in that tweet deserves some backlash here.  Even just focusing on who owns the systems, the majority (for Starlink) and the vast majority (for Kuiper) will benefit non-billionaires.  Like teachers in Ontario once they start receiving their pension.  Like normal holders of retirement investment accounts.  Maybe half the posters on this thread will benefit as owners.

That is the hope, just as the hope was that OneWeb would be modified for GNSS applications, and instead it was determined not to be feasible, or O3b was going to connect third-world populations but instead is mostly catering for cruise ships or airliners (or many other projects that didn't come to fruition as advertised, or whose application for the masses was a side consideration at best - say as a quick example Chinese spy satellites which are always touted as serving "agricultural planning", and perhaps they actually serve that role, but we all know that's not their main goal).

Likewise, there's at least some level of disconnect between many megaconstellation supporters who appear to think they will surely be eminently used to provide Internet for the disconnected masses, when it has been made abundantly clear by SpaceX themselves (as the most credible operator out there so far) that such scheme will only work in the foreseeable future for sparsely populated areas - furthermore when the military's involvement is becoming quite notorious. Maybe these constellations will truly be something as transformative as GPS but for broadband communications - or maybe it'll have an Iridium-like market penetration but with the drawbacks discussed in this thread, or perhaps it'll "just" end up being mostly a substitute of AEHF-like systems.

Regardless of the above, while pointing out both the return of the billionaire no-no topic to this thread (which I won't further comment on, given the circumstances) and the irrelevance of IPOs or stock return speculation here: to say investment in Starlink or Kuiper will benefit "proletariat"/"demographic majority" stockholders some day is a shot in the dark at best at this stage.

Edit/Lar: It appears that my point still hasn't been made forcefully enough. Snark is not helpful.

[Lar]

PS, a message I just received reminded me that the middle ground, that SpaceX IS working to mitigate things, but could do more, that there IS an impact to astronomy that we should not just wave away, ... has been lost in the amazing people vs polemicist infighting. It has driven some contributors, including some who work in this field and are highly qualified to opine about the technical aspects of all of this... driven them completely away.

Be excellent to each other. Be collegial. Maybe if you play nice for a while they'll come back. Maybe.

[eeergo]

It has driven some contributors, including some who work in this field and are highly qualified to opine about the technical aspects of all of this... driven them completely away.

Indeed, I do work in both fields (astrophysics and satellites) professionally, not in my basement. I don't consider I'm "highly qualified" to judge the issues independently, but I can and try to interpret with the related skills I do possess what others more knowledgeable than me but with less time for fruitless Internet discussions have to say - while believe it or not trying to acknowledge SpaceX's (or others') efforts. I also try to show "suck it up" is not a constructive attitude.

Indeed, I am being completely driven away, by a general attitude that obfuscates reality and refuses to admit the smallest issue, and now by this "moderation" which exacerbates said extreme bias. Fine, maybe this can be turned into a "Megaconstellation post-criticism support thread" most productively.

Finally, indeed I have also received several PMs in the past about this very thread and my participation in it, from some of the "valuable contributors" you quote, who wanted to show support.

[CameronD]

It seems there are now so many Starlink satellites up there that they're photobombing the night sky!

"I try to avoid looking at them when I'm observing … we just have to get used to them I suppose."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/what-were-these-lights-in-the-sky-eastern-australia/100064630

[Robotbeat]

Well sure, if you look right after deployment.

[Tommyboy]

It seems there are now so many Starlink satellites up there that they're photobombing the night sky!

"I try to avoid looking at them when I'm observing … we just have to get used to them I suppose."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/what-were-these-lights-in-the-sky-eastern-australia/

That URL 404s for me, perhaps geoblocked in The Netherlands?

[alfiopuglisi]

That URL 404s for me, perhaps geoblocked in The Netherlands?

Looking for it on google returns a slightly different URL:  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/what-were-these-lights-in-the-sky-eastern-australia/100064630

[OTV Booster]

It seems there are now so many Starlink satellites up there that they're photobombing the night sky!

"I try to avoid looking at them when I'm observing … we just have to get used to them I suppose."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/what-were-these-lights-in-the-sky-eastern-australia/

As a life long amateur astronomer I say, get over it. A constant that astronomy has faced for the last 150 years is man made intrusion into the night sky. Sky glow, aircraft, radio interference and for the last 60 years, increasing satellite traffic. Even in NE Kansas, in a city of 100,000, my limiting magnitude is not much better than 3. But TBH, my eyes aren't what they used to be.


I'd like to see more dark sky efforts but the population grows faster than light pollution abatement. That and my neighbors porch Kleig light. Sats are an intrusion only around dawn and dusk but they also offer photographic opportunity. I've taken a pic of the ISS with a hand held 400mm f5.6 with some serious vibration reduction. It's not much, but it's mine.


Get over it or be prepared to either pay to run fiber everywhere (its own form of intrusion) or mandate us all back to 40 acres and a mule. Over my dead body. I LIKE indoor plumbing.

[rsdavis9]

It seems there are now so many Starlink satellites up there that they're photobombing the night sky!

"I try to avoid looking at them when I'm observing … we just have to get used to them I suppose."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/what-were-these-lights-in-the-sky-eastern-australia/

As a life long amateur astronomer I say, get over it. A constant that astronomy has faced for the last 150 years is man made intrusion into the night sky. Sky glow, aircraft, radio interference and for the last 60 years, increasing satellite traffic. Even in NE Kansas, in a city of 100,000, my limiting magnitude is not much better than 3. But TBH, my eyes aren't what they used to be.


I'd like to see more dark sky efforts but the population grows faster than light pollution abatement. That and my neighbors porch Kleig light. Sats are an intrusion only around dawn and dusk but they also offer photographic opportunity. I've taken a pic of the ISS with a hand held 400mm f5.6 with some serious vibration reduction. It's not much, but it's mine.


Get over it or be prepared to either pay to run fiber everywhere (its own form of intrusion) or mandate us all back to 40 acres and a mule. Over my dead body. I LIKE indoor plumbing.

Yes I would like to second this.
I love looking at the stars. Local light destruction of the night sky is by far the worst problem. Street lights, neighbors who leave porch lights on, car dealerships, etc. All in the name of security.

[CameronD]

That URL 404s for me, perhaps geoblocked in The Netherlands?

Looking for it on google returns a slightly different URL:  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-13/what-were-these-lights-in-the-sky-eastern-australia/100064630

My bad.. it seems I cropped the rubbish off the end of the link a little too far and I've edited accordingly.

Anyways, an interesting first post.  Welcome to the forum!