
The Mega Constellations Are Already Here. The Time for Polite Concern Is Over - fortran77
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2020/08/28/the-mega-constellations-are-already-here-the-time-for-polite-concern-is-over/#5ae6bd0d3b87
======
squibbles
Why is the public discussion on maintaining the status quo, rather than on
pushing the boundaries of astronomy. For example, NASA has proposed to build
the Lunar Crater Radio Telescope (LCRT) on the moon. [0] [1]

Does someone have a financial, political, or military interest in preventing
satellite constellations?

[0]
[https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2020_Phase_...](https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2020_Phase_I_Phase_II/lunar_crater_radio_telescope/)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Crater_Radio_Telescope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Crater_Radio_Telescope)

------
vosper
Pretty much just a rehash of the various other articles on this topic, several
of which have already been discussed here. See this from a few days ago

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24291443](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24291443)

------
mensetmanusman
This will be fascinating as every country tries to have their own system. If
humans were rational creatures, we would build and maintain one system to stop
reinventing the wheel and preventing kessler syndrome.

~~~
pharke
We are rational creatures but we have imperfect knowledge. It's in our nature
to advance through search and competition rather than attempt to preplan
everything.

~~~
mensetmanusman
But we do occasionally stop competing when we know it harms our own chance of
survival, e.g. nuclear testing.

I wonder if filling the skies with over 1-10 million satellites will pose
similar types of self-reflection, or if the risk is too low for anyone to care
that much.

~~~
pharke
The problem with a reactionary halt in some area due to a perceived sense of
danger is that we often go too far. The campaign against nuclear arms also
leaked out into a campaign against all things nuclear. We're only now starting
to restore some sanity to the discussion and begin tentative funding of
promising technologies in that industry. If you look at the broad history of
nuclear power you'll realize that we are far behind where we should be. Power
plant design hasn't changed in decades and nuclear power generation is nowhere
near as widespread as it should be. Given that the largest contributors to CO2
emissions are electrical power generation and industry you could even make a
case that the anti-nuclear movement of the 1960s, which resulted in the drying
up of funding and academic interest in nuclear science as well as rampant
NIMBYism and political opposition to nuclear reactors, is the reason we are
now suffering from the effects of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. Ironic.

------
errantspark
It's finee, compared to the multitude of other problems facing humanity this
one is so so small and solvable, it feels like an HoA complaint. It's like
demanding that your housemate who likes to talk on the phone at night keep
your schedule rather than putting in some earplugs. People love to get mad.

------
Animats
Are these new constellations at low enough altitude to re-enter within a few
years, or what?

~~~
valuearb
Yes, Starlink is at altitudes that deorbit naturally in roughly 5 years.

------
thelazydogsback
I see a bright future for satellite de-commissioning craft - I assume by
staying in a parking orbit and then zipping around as needed and nudging them
out of orbit at just the right time to avoid other satellites and ensure a
innocuous (presumably oceanic) landing site for any remaining wreckage.

~~~
bryanlarsen
All Starlink satellites contain ion thrusters to maintain their orbit. At end
of life, those thrusters are used to deorbit them. These satellites are in
such a low orbit that these thrusters are required to maintain orbit -- if the
thrusters fail the satellites naturally deorbit within a couple of years.

Any ion thruster powered satellite de-commisioning craft would take months to
reach a failed satellite, so it wouldn't make a huge difference.

------
googlryas
I think the night sky would be _more_ interesting with visible satellites
zipping around.

And I'm curious who gave a perpetual use agreement of the night sky to
astronomers, such that they think their complaints should be considered.

~~~
abdullahkhalids
Astronomers don't speak for themselves. Most of them are paid via government
funding, and their job is specifically to do things that advance society in
ways that the free market would not.

When they speak, they speak for the people, they speak for their students,
they speak for the industries that are positively impacted by their research.
If you impede astronomers from doing their job, we are all worse off because
of it. The astronomers themselves are not impacted that much because they are
still getting paid.

~~~
googlryas
Are they speaking for the hundreds of millions of people who may get internet
access for the first time though satellite based internet?

~~~
ben_w
I write this with the upmost hope in the future success of private space
sector, and with a desire to live to see Mercury turned into a Dyson swarm and
to be part of the initial colonisation of Mars or Luna:

There are other ways to get cheap internet, and these satellites serve low-
population rural areas much better than they serve cities where most people
live.

(Also: Musk does seem to care about the effect on astronomy, presumably
because his drive is “prevent human extinction” and astronomy can help with
that).

~~~
googlryas
There are other ways to get cheap internet...but Musk et al are actually doing
this. No one else is working on some earth-based plan for getting the last few
billion people on the internet AFAICT. Google and facebook did some things
with balloons and aircraft but that was more of a tech demo than an actual
attempt to provide internet service.

~~~
Trombone12
The fact that your disinterest for rural infrastructure projects in Ghana mean
_you_ don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist. It just tells the
reader you haven't bothered to search for something like "Uganda rural
internet project"; unsurprisingly for large infrastructure projects in a poor
country, it's being done bit by bit and so there are in fact dozens of
projects.

~~~
googlryas
The ad hominem is unnecessary and misplaced. I was talking about one large
project to give the final billions access, not piecemeal projects helping out
a few million people here and there (and disregarding another few million
people here and there).

I understand that rural infrastructure projects occur. So what's the realistic
timeline for, say, 99% coverage? My question is: How long should rural people
have to wait, and how much should they pay for internet access, so that
astronomers can have 5% of their observations unaffected by satellites?

~~~
abdullahkhalids
There are other good reasons for doing piecemeal projects. Paying SpaceX for
internet, transfers money out of already economically backwards areas to a far
away private company in another country. Some people will argue that these are
neocolonist attempts by West into East.

