Impacts of Large Satellite Constellations on Astronomy

[RedLineTrain]

Who ultimately gets to decide all the compromises that MUST happen?

Perhaps push will never come to shove.  SpaceX's mitigation advances have been dramatic despite the satellite size increases and so far it seems like the impact of those mitigations is not disastrous to the bottom line.

[Hyperborealis]

When the Chinese and probably the Russians put up their megaconstellation in the medium term, how much effort and expense will they devote to these kinds of mitigation work?

Not that the Chinese or the Russians disregard science or astronomy.  But the tradeoffs they make in defining the military and commercial utility of their satellites may not resemble Western ones.

I wonder if this whole conversation won't seem quaint in a few years, parochial,  the effervescence of the current historical moment.


 

[edzieba]

Let's not pollute this thread with "junk science" aspersions. Conspiracy theories are not going to be tolerated. Cite evidence supporting your on topic point or risk losing your post.

Hit a nerve did that? I hope so, because I want people to realize what is happening. Scientists are unequivical about how starlink is damaging astronomy. 41 pages later, people are still denying the science.

Thats the key here: denying science

Scientists are unequivocal in saying that unmitigated, full deployment of all proposed constellations would damage ground-based astronomy. That's not the same statement as "starlink is damaging astronomy".
e.g. for radio astronomy:

Recent news reports of planned constellations of communication satellites, including the SpaceX Starlink proposal, have pointed out the potential impacts these systems may have on radio astronomy.
[...]
Most recently, the NRAO and GBO have been working directly with SpaceX to jointly analyze and minimize any potential impacts from their proposed Starlink system. These discussions have been fruitful and are providing valuable guidelines that could be considered by other such systems as well. To date, SpaceX has demonstrated their respect for our concerns and their support for astronomy. This includes an agreed-upon protocol to monitor impacts and address issues to NRAO’s current and future cutting-edge research facilities.

And optical astronomy:

“Without close coordination and cooperation, satellite constellations will have an unprecedented impact on our view of the cosmos and negatively impact astronomical research,” said NOIRLab Director Patrick McCarthy. “It is heartening to see that we are making important strides so that satellite-service providers can meet their objectives while protecting the night sky for astronomy and the enjoyment of future generations.”
[...]
“NSF and SpaceX have collaborated from the beginning on how best to meet the goals of protecting astronomy while also providing maximum internet access for communities across the United States. The mitigation steps taken can and should serve as a model for coordination among satellite operators and the astronomy community within the United States and beyond,” said NSF in their statement.

If you're going to demand people listen to scientists, it would be advisable to listen to what the scientists are actuallysaying.

Sooo..... why don't we address the elephant in the room.
The entire astronomy community is very clear about the problems starlink is causing them. They are the professionals about this. We have 41 pages and counting of people ignoring or disagreeing with scientists about their field of study. Reasons for the disagreement are financial/economic. They don't want anything that will hurt a company they support.

If we swap the subject of astronomy with climate change, it becomes more clear. ITs the exact same pattern.
We have 41 pages of people denying science and scientists. There are names for that, a group that includes flat earthers and anti vaxxers. Anyone who denies what scientists say for their own agenda.

Except that those professionals only think about their profession.  If something hurts their profession, they will shout from the rooftops.  If it doesn't, they could care less.  I've seen that in many science disciples...not just astronomy.

So the even bigger elephant in the room.  Who should get precedent?

A technology that is finally allowing people to get decent internet anywhere and is a very NET good for humans in general or telling them they can't have that because it makes the astronomer's science harder?  I don't have an answer to that except that well...the whole thing for me boils down to that.

Who ultimately gets to decide all the compromises that MUST happen?

Trying to couch the problem as "have satellite internet or shut down all satellite internet" is disingenuous at best. We have an existence proof that astronomy and satellite internet are not mutually exclusive.

The problem is in how to make sure that the current situation of voluntary mitigations developed as problems are surfaced (fully at-cost whack-a-mole) can move onto mandatory mitigation with the mitigations known in advance of system design - let alone launch - so mitigations are just another system design constraint rather than an additional cost.

[daedalus1]

As with most things in America,  views are polarised.

[RedLineTrain]

When the Chinese and probably the Russians put up their megaconstellation in the medium term, how much effort and expense will they devote to these kinds of mitigation work?

Not that the Chinese or the Russians disregard science or astronomy.  But the tradeoffs they make in defining the military and commercial utility of their satellites may not resemble Western ones.

I wonder if this whole conversation won't seem quaint in a few years, parochial,  the effervescence of the current historical moment.

As far as I can tell, absent an MSG Sphere in space, the Chinese and the Russians would not gain anything by making their satellites more visible.  If there are existing mitigations that they can readily copy, they would probably do so.

The Chinese probably would wish to increase face on this, if it's not too expensive.  The public perception of Westerners might have a small indirect impact here.  Admittedly, we have counter-examples:  stages careening out of control and hypergol stages dumped in residential areas.

[RedLineTrain]

The problem is in how to make sure that the current situation of voluntary mitigations developed as problems are surfaced (fully at-cost whack-a-mole) can move onto mandatory mitigation with the mitigations known in advance of system design - let alone launch - so mitigations are just another system design constraint rather than an additional cost.

What's wrong with voluntary mitigations?  Isn't that working okay so far?

[zubenelgenubi]

Let's not pollute this thread with "junk science" aspersions. Conspiracy theories are not going to be tolerated. Cite evidence supporting your on topic point or risk losing your post.

Moderator:
Followed by a now-deleted post that violated multiple forum posting rules.
Congratulations 🎊 👏 💐 🥳 ❗️

[D_Dom]

deadman, no nerve, just thought a gentle reminder to be excellent to each other was called for. My comment is definitely not pointed in any particular direction.

haywood, this site is focused on engineering, engineering is done with numbers, anything less is just an opinion. Personal opinion is welcome, clearly stating it is your opinion is appreciated.

[Asteroza]

The problem is in how to make sure that the current situation of voluntary mitigations developed as problems are surfaced (fully at-cost whack-a-mole) can move onto mandatory mitigation with the mitigations known in advance of system design - let alone launch - so mitigations are just another system design constraint rather than an additional cost.

What's wrong with voluntary mitigations?  Isn't that working okay so far?

I think one of the arguments here is that while any voluntary individual sat mitigation might be enough individually, the sheer numbers are a different dimension to the problem, and that can't be fixed. If your picture has a small handful of sats you can mask away a few streaks, but when there's a whole swarm of them running through the frame, your picture is gonna end up difficult to use. It's like trying to stare at scrambled analog cable tv channels as a kid, you might see something but that's a whole lot of effort to see something poorly.

[edzieba]

The problem is in how to make sure that the current situation of voluntary mitigations developed as problems are surfaced (fully at-cost whack-a-mole) can move onto mandatory mitigation with the mitigations known in advance of system design - let alone launch - so mitigations are just another system design constraint rather than an additional cost.

What's wrong with voluntary mitigations?  Isn't that working okay so far?

Kind of. It didn't work to start with (because what needed to be mitigated was not known beforehand), 'works' for a single constellation operator mitigating issues as they are identified, but does not work for other operators or older satellites who do not have mitigations in place (e.g. the very bright BlueWalker 3, the currently orbiting OneWeb birds, the earlier Starlink birds), and future operators can simply not bother with mitigations to save money.
A regulatory framework adds teeth to reduce the "that sounds hard/expensive so we won't bother" issue, makes the competitive landscape a more fair playing field (everyone needs to mitigate impacts, nobody gets to undercut others by avoiding doing the right thing), and a set of requirements to meet being known in advance makes mitigations cheaper vs. having to retrofit them piece by piece later. Doing this at a government level also means public funding can be unlocked for figuring out potential impacts in advance rather than the current reactionary approach (which saps funds from science work to study impacts, and has mitigation research cost borne by satellite operators) and avoids duplication of efforts by multiple private operators.

[RedLineTrain]

What's wrong with voluntary mitigations?  Isn't that working okay so far?

Kind of. It didn't work to start with (because what needed to be mitigated was not known beforehand), 'works' for a single constellation operator mitigating issues as they are identified, but does not work for other operators or older satellites who do not have mitigations in place (e.g. the very bright BlueWalker 3, the currently orbiting OneWeb birds, the earlier Starlink birds), and future operators can simply not bother with mitigations to save money.
A regulatory framework adds teeth to reduce the "that sounds hard/expensive so we won't bother" issue, makes the competitive landscape a more fair playing field (everyone needs to mitigate impacts, nobody gets to undercut others by avoiding doing the right thing), and a set of requirements to meet being known in advance makes mitigations cheaper vs. having to retrofit them piece by piece later. Doing this at a government level also means public funding can be unlocked for figuring out potential impacts in advance rather than the current reactionary approach (which saps funds from science work to study impacts, and has mitigation research cost borne by satellite operators) and avoids duplication of efforts by multiple private operators.

So far, learning and mitigating on-the-fly seems good enough to me.  We have learned a lot since the first Starlinks were orbited and those first satellites will be deorbited soon anyway. Bluewalker 3 is a one-off and should be put into the category of the ISS.

When you talk "teeth" on any measures, I would urge you to take a step back and reconsider that regulate-first attitude. It is not clear that astronomers would be the winners on any forced trade-offs that are made.  Striving for good enough is a good thing.

For background, in the United States, the FCC has been "regulating in the breach" on non-RF issues like light pollution and orbital debris.  Such stuff is beyond the FCC's remit and, if push came to shove, any of these satellite companies could sue to stop the FCC from considering those issues.  Of course, winning on that might invite legislation from the congress, so it seems in everybody's interest to work together on this issue to make it more or less a non-issue.

[jpo234]

A regulatory framework adds teeth to reduce the "that sounds hard/expensive so we won't bother" issue, makes the competitive landscape a more fair playing field (everyone needs to mitigate impacts, nobody gets to undercut others by avoiding doing the right thing), and a set of requirements to meet being known in advance makes mitigations cheaper vs. having to retrofit them piece by piece later. Doing this at a government level also means public funding can be unlocked for figuring out potential impacts in advance rather than the current reactionary approach (which saps funds from science work to study impacts, and has mitigation research cost borne by satellite operators) and avoids duplication of efforts by multiple private operators.

You are talking about US regulations, right? What about Guowang, for instance?

[edzieba]

What's wrong with voluntary mitigations?  Isn't that working okay so far?

Kind of. It didn't work to start with (because what needed to be mitigated was not known beforehand), 'works' for a single constellation operator mitigating issues as they are identified, but does not work for other operators or older satellites who do not have mitigations in place (e.g. the very bright BlueWalker 3, the currently orbiting OneWeb birds, the earlier Starlink birds), and future operators can simply not bother with mitigations to save money.
A regulatory framework adds teeth to reduce the "that sounds hard/expensive so we won't bother" issue, makes the competitive landscape a more fair playing field (everyone needs to mitigate impacts, nobody gets to undercut others by avoiding doing the right thing), and a set of requirements to meet being known in advance makes mitigations cheaper vs. having to retrofit them piece by piece later. Doing this at a government level also means public funding can be unlocked for figuring out potential impacts in advance rather than the current reactionary approach (which saps funds from science work to study impacts, and has mitigation research cost borne by satellite operators) and avoids duplication of efforts by multiple private operators.

So far, learning and mitigating on-the-fly seems good enough to me.  We have learned a lot since the first Starlinks were orbited and those first satellites will be deorbited soon anyway. Bluewalker 3 is a one-off and should be put into the category of the ISS.

When you talk "teeth" on any measures, I would urge you to take a step back and reconsider that regulate-first attitude. It is not clear that astronomers would be the winners on any forced trade-offs that are made.  Striving for good enough is a good thing.

For background, in the United States, the FCC has been "regulating in the breach" on non-RF issues like light pollution and orbital debris.  Such stuff is beyond the FCC's remit and, if push came to shove, any of these satellite companies could sue to stop the FCC from considering those issues.  Of course, winning on that might invite legislation from the congress, so it seems in everybody's interest to work together on this issue to make it more or less a non-issue.

'Regulate first' would have been trying to draw up regulations prior to the launch of Starlink. The time for 'regulate first' has long passed. There is no need to allow this to turn into a total disaster like that of terrestrial light pollution before taking action.

A regulatory framework adds teeth to reduce the "that sounds hard/expensive so we won't bother" issue, makes the competitive landscape a more fair playing field (everyone needs to mitigate impacts, nobody gets to undercut others by avoiding doing the right thing), and a set of requirements to meet being known in advance makes mitigations cheaper vs. having to retrofit them piece by piece later. Doing this at a government level also means public funding can be unlocked for figuring out potential impacts in advance rather than the current reactionary approach (which saps funds from science work to study impacts, and has mitigation research cost borne by satellite operators) and avoids duplication of efforts by multiple private operators.

You are talking about US regulations, right? What about Guowang, for instance?

The US is notoriously bad at regulation (overspecificly defined, inflexible to change, and underfunded), so an international body (e.g. ITU-level) would be preferable. But since all but one proposed megaconstellation is US-based or effectively US-based and reliant on the US market for viability so subject to its whims regardless (similar to how OBD ended up a global standard without global enforcement), US-only regulation would still be a far sight better than doing nothing.