
SpaceX tests black satellite to reduce ‘megaconstellation’ threat to astronomy - pseudolus
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00041-4
======
modeless
The satellites can be seen with the naked eye. There's a visible pass over San
Francisco tonight around 6:15 PM:
[https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink-
lat...](https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink-latest)

The viewing window is actually pretty small. For most of the night the
satellites are not visible because they are in Earth's shadow. There is an
impact on astronomy but it is being overstated by journalists hungry for yet
another "Big Tech bad" story.

~~~
prpl
No, it’s not. This hurts survey telescopes and it’s an orders of magnitude
issue.

A rule of astronomy is that if you can see it with your eyes near a city than
it’s really really fucking bright, if you can see it with your eyes in the
wilderness after your eyes have adjusted for 10 minutes, than it’s still
extremely bright.

Bright, fast-moving things are pretty terrible.

Even if Starlink doesn’t kill astronomy, the next 4 companies with similar
deployment will definitely exclude types of sciences and ruin billions of
dollars of investments in new observatories.

~~~
ogre_codes
Saying it will "Kill astronomy" is pretty hyperbolic.

It will likely affect some earthbound astronomy significantly, but much
(most?) of the most important work in modern astronomy is satellite based.

I'm on the fence on this whole issue. It's not exactly clear what impact it
will have on astronomy. Nor what impact it will have on making the internet
pricing and availability. Where I used to live, the only options for internet
access were expensive and really bad, the positive impact this might have is
potentially quite big.

It's hard with a story like this to suss out what the long term effects will
be so it's a big grey area.

~~~
Rebelgecko
>It will likely affect some earthbound astronomy significantly, but much
(most?) of the most important work in modern astronomy is satellite based.

I'm not an astronomer but I'm not convinced that that's the case. The number
of space telescopes pales in comparison to the number of terrestrial
observatories. Moreover, advances like adaptive optics have done a lot to
close the gap between ground and space capabilities (for optical telescopes).
Even once you've invested in expensive tech like adaptove optics, a telescope
in space still costs an order of magnitude more than one on the ground (thats
being really conservative. JWST has already cost ~10x more than the most
expensive ground telescope ever, and the thing hasn't even launched yet)

There were a few space based radio telescopes in the past, but I don't think
there are any now. Imagine building something like the Arecibo Observatory[1]
or VLA[2] in space. And speaking of the VLA, some of the techniques for
getting high quality results (e.g. interferometry without physically
conjoining the receivers) are difficult if not impossible to do in space.

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

[2]: 27 of these guys, which are able to move around precisely on rails to
generate constructive interference with the different waves they're receiving:
[https://public.nrao.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/vla_panor...](https://public.nrao.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/vla_panorama_med-1.jpg)

~~~
ogre_codes
> I'm not an astronomer but I'm not convinced that that's the case.

I'm not entirely certain what the balance is here. I don't think my post made
it clear that I'm not certain how big the effect would be, only that there is
a tradeoff here which is hard to quantify.

I do know there is a _lot_ of significant astronomy done by space telescope
and that the importance of space astronomy is only growing.

Seems to me the answer is that those who benefit from the new satellite
constellations (SpaceX, etc) should finance additional investment in astronomy
to mitigate the effects.

~~~
cptskippy
What about amateur astronomy? Are we now saying that only those with the means
to afford space telescopes or expensive software can participate?

~~~
ogre_codes
Are you an amateur astronomer or just trying to be the devil's advocate?

I'd be curious to know what the impact is on impactful amateur astronomy (as
opposed to backyard hobbyists who are just engaged for personal pleasure). I
know some amateurs use images created by public telescopes, I'm _not sure_ how
much meaningful work is done by amateurs using backyard equipment anymore.

Not being dismissive, genuinely curious.

~~~
cbanek
Variable star observing is actually a place where amateurs really help, since
it's about observation time, and not necessarily some hugely powerful
telescope. And the more powerful a telescope is, the more people want to use
it to point at all sorts of things, which makes it kind of expensive to use
those telescopes for variable star observations which take a lot of time.

"Since professional astronomers do not have the time or the resources to
monitor every variable star, astronomy is one of the few sciences where
amateurs can make genuine contributions to scientific research." [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Variab...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Variable_Star_Observers)

~~~
wbl
And the Betelgeuse deathwatch!

------
zekrioca
Astronomers are already criticizing such ideas, and have already created an
international appeal by professional astronomers open for subscription to ask
for an intervention from institutions and governments. See:
[https://astronomersappeal.wordpress.com/](https://astronomersappeal.wordpress.com/)

------
ZhuanXia
Astronomers will have to get used to this. If we ban these for such nonsense
reasons, it will be Chinese satellites blocking their view.

~~~
bscphil
Isn't this exactly the same view as "if we regulate the use of fossil fuels,
China will use way more than us and outcompete us economically" and "if we
limit the number of nuclear weapons we create, there's going to be a gap
between our nuclear firepower and Russia's"?

Creating a livable planet is not easy, but nationalistic thinking makes it a
hundred times harder.

~~~
mech1234
Which do you think has more capability to improve and save lives? 1\. Cheaper
internet available everywhere for anybody willing to pay 2\. Better data on
the cosmos

I'd go with #1.

~~~
viklove
Then we get blasted by a gamma ray burst from Betelgeuse and we're all dead.
Studying the cosmos is extremely important, and studying threats (asteroids,
supernovae, etc.) are just one part of that.

~~~
foxyv
What is the point of studying the cosmos if we never leave our planet? Space
is coming. Admittedly much slower than we expected. However SpaceX's
satellites are just the beginning. Astronomy will continue, just much more so.
Imagine a telescope array the size of the earth scanning the stars from orbit.
Why look at an asteroid when you can GO there and do something with it?

------
deegles
SpaceX could provide a handful of at-cost launches for astronomy projects per
year. It wouldn't fix anything for the ground telescopes but could be a bit of
an olive branch for the community.

~~~
SiempreViernes
Even if they were _free launches_ that wouldn't rank above a taunt: most of
the satellite cost is in the development and construction anyway.

~~~
grey-area
Starlink satellites cost < 500k each, compared to hundreds of millions for
traditional sats.

If you mass produced space telescopes they wouldn't cost the ridiculous sums
spent on JWST, which is a terrible example of the wasteful cost plus contracts
of nasa. They've been planning it since 1996, and costs have risen from 1
billion to 10 billion.

------
justinclift
Wonder if they're using VantaBlack, Black 3.0, or some other variant of "super
black" for this experiment?

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

[https://culturehustle.com/collections/black/products/black-3...](https://culturehustle.com/collections/black/products/black-3-0-the-
worlds-blackest-black-acrylic-paint-150ml)

~~~
cbanek
It's possible, although it's kind of tricky to use in practice.

From the Vantablack wikipedia article:

When light strikes Vantablack, instead of bouncing off, it becomes trapped and
is continually deflected amongst the tubes, eventually becoming absorbed and
dissipating into heat.[7]

Dealing with heat in space isn't easy, since you have no air to dissipate heat
into.

~~~
ben_bai
Black satellites are nothing new. Just ask any Surveillance Agency how they
handle the heating problem due to black paint.

Oops that's classified. But probably such satellites need a dedicated cooling
system.

It's never as easy as, just paint it black and hope for the best.

~~~
cbanek
Right, but that means that stealth costs mass (weight) and means less
satellites per launch. So that means making them less visible costs more
money.

For non spy satellites where stealth isn't one of the top goals, that might
mean people don't do it.

Also, typically one does not simply ask a surveillance agency how they do
things. They would probably respond with something like, "NO SUCH PERSON AT
THIS ADDRESS, RETURN TO SENDER."

~~~
ben_bai
From what i read they are going with "partially painted black" Makes sense to
only have the underside facing earth black. Also the satellites underside is
only exposed to the sun with an steep angle because most of the time when it
would be exposed to sunlight it's going to be in earths shadow. Reducing the
extra heating even more..

Could work without extra cooling...

------
audunw
Question: If SpaceX is successful in developing the Starship, couldn't they
launch huge space telescopes for a very low cost? I'd imagine that SpaceXs
efforts will be a net positive for astronomers in the end. If the satellite
problems becomes too big, maybe they should offer discounts for launching
space telescopes.

Another question.. if you are building a radio telescope in space, could you
just use a thin foil that folds out like origami for the reflector?

~~~
dr_orpheus
> If SpaceX is successful in developing the Starship, couldn't they launch
> huge space telescopes for a very low cost?

If the BFR (the rocket behind the starship) is successful then yes it could
mean the ability to launch very large telescopes in to space. The scientific
community would be very exited about this possibility. However, this doesn't
necessarily make it very low cost. One launch of the BFR would still likely be
much more than an a Falcon Heavy launch.

> if you are building a radio telescope in space, could you just use a thin
> foil that folds out like origami for the reflector?

Yes! This technology already exists and it is really pretty amazing to see in
action. Right now most of them are used on communications satellites or for
synthetic aperture radar satellites. See the videos below:

Animation of the radar antenna on SMAP:

[https://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/83/smap-antenna-
deployme...](https://smap.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/83/smap-antenna-deployment-
animation/)

Actual video of a large communcations antenna (12m diameter) being deployed.
Skip ahead to ~2:15 for the actual unfurling.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mFnNDzxKFk&feature=emb_titl...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mFnNDzxKFk&feature=emb_title)

~~~
itp
Couple quick clarifications:

BFR isn't a name that's still in use. Poster you're responding to was correct
in calling it Starship: "SpaceX's Starship spacecraft and Super Heavy rocket
(collectively referred to as Starship)" (from
[https://www.spacex.com/starship](https://www.spacex.com/starship)).

Starship projects to be significantly less expensive than Falcon Heavy _or_
Falcon 9. With total reusability of both stages and a construction built
toward little to no refurbish or rehab, the cost per launch is nearly
completely dictated (order of magnitude) by fuel costs, and project to be ~$2
million. This is an order of magnitude reduction in $/kg over the Falcon 9.

[https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-
cost-...](https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-flight-passenger-cost-elon-
musk.html)

[https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3740/1](https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3740/1)

~~~
dr_orpheus
The article you pointed to said that is would be $2 million that SpaceX would
have to spend on each launch. That would not be the amount for someone to
purchase a launch with that rocket. Considering Elon estimated that
development would cost $5 billion to $10 billion [1], the cost of launch would
likely be much higher based on recouping the intial development and
manufacturing costs.

As a side note, I don't really believe the $2 million price tag either based
on my own experiences. Mission specific planning/services/verification tend to
push prices of launches 10s of millions of dollars above the "sticker prices"
that SpaceX puts on their website.

Nothing against SpaceX, I am a fan of everything they have done to decrease
launch costs. They have significantly changed the game in terms of lowering
launch costs. But it is really hard to take Elon's wild numbers that he gives
the press at face value.

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/18/17873332/spacex-elon-
musk...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/18/17873332/spacex-elon-musk-yusaku-
maezawa-space-tourism-bfr-crew-dragon)

------
tinco
Is there a specific reason we're still doing ground based astronomy? With
satellites becoming ever cheaper, sure we at some point should be able to get
a significant telescope up there right? Are we waiting for the bigger rockets
to accomplish that?

~~~
clmul
It's very expensive to build (especially large) space telescopes (JWST is
already costing more than 8 billion at this point), and astronomy is not very
well funded.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
It's fascinating to me that the telescope costs so much more than the launch.

A high-quality 24" or 1-meter university-grade observatory telescope can be
had for well under $1 million. If you multiply that by a factor of 100 to
mount it on a satellite, you're still at 'just' $0.1 billion and can buy a
whole Ariane-5 launch just like the JWST to put it at your desired orbit for
$0.15B, for a total of $0.25B (a Falcon Heavy runs about half the cost for a
launch). You could launch 30 of those (hopefully improving your factor-of-100
cost increase to something more manageable) for less than what the JWST will
cost.

I get that JWST is a 6.5 meter telescope, not a piddly backyard 24" device,
but why do we have to launch the best single scope possible?

There are only 7 visible-light space telescopes listed at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes#Visib...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes#Visible_light).
I wish there were 70 or 700, with live Internet feeds.

~~~
ISL
JWST is being built to do things that are truly impossible on Earth. It is an
infrared telescope that will image things that cannot be seen through Earth's
atmosphere.

JWST is not the first IR telescope (Spitzer Space telescope, retiring this
month comes to mind, 0.85 m diameter primary), but its size will allow both
improved resolution (diffraction limit falls like 1/diameter) and improved
collection efficiency (grows like diameter^2). Without constellation-flying
and interferometric telescopes (see Keck Observatory), one cannot get either
one from an array of small telescopes.

There are a lot of scientists grumpy about JWST because of its huge budget,
but as long as JWST works, the view it gives of our universe will be
spectacular. At this point, I think everyone _really_ wants JWST to work, as
so much has been sacrificed to make it possible.

------
a-wu
I have no experience in astronomy or satellites, but here's my naive idea. The
article suggested erasing trails from the images using software. If SpaceX
made an open API that detailed the precise location of every satellite at
every point in time, could the imaging software use this to know that at this
location in the image there is definitively a satellite that can be erased?
I'm not sure what kind of sensors these telescopes use, and it probably
wouldn't solve the issue of the bright spot messing up the exposure, but at
least you could get rid of the trails?

~~~
modeless
SpaceX is publishing the precise location of each satellite continuously. It's
really cool actually; most satellite operators don't do this. The raw data is
available at Celestrak here:
[https://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/supplemental/](https://celestrak.com/NORAD/elements/supplemental/)

I'm using this data to power my site that shows when you can see Starlink
yourself: [https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink-
lat...](https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/?special=starlink-latest)

~~~
dgritsko
This site is awesome! Have you thought about extending it to check for the
position of the ISS? I would assume that information is probably readily
available, as well.

~~~
modeless
Thanks! Yes, it can track most of the other bright satellites in the sky as
well, try the base page link:
[https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/](https://james.darpinian.com/satellites/)

~~~
dgritsko
Wow, this is great. Thank you!

------
biomcgary
A couple years ago I moved near Lowell Observatory and our city, Flagstaff,
has a number of Dark Sky ordinances, which are great. I've seen so many more
stars than ever in my life. We just bought our kids a Newtonian reflector
telescope.

Most things have trade-offs. Hopefully, the reduced cost of access to space
will allow launching of more space-based telescopes, which don't have problems
with atmosphere. Any astronomers here that care to explain what only ground-
based observatories can do?

~~~
NikolaeVarius
You can make really really really big mirrors,. Space telescopes mirrors are
limited by Fairing size, so barr folding mirrors ala James Webb, there is a
fairly hard limit.

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

~~~
marvin
Do you know anything about development work that's been made regarding
manufacturing mirrors in space? I'm not thinking assembling them from pieces,
I'm thinking more about melting some raw material and using some physical
process to create in space something larger.

~~~
HorstG
Gravity is an issue for mirror production. But it is far less of an issue than
tension and deformation during the months- to years-long cooling of the
substrate. The temperature and environment control to do that is challenging
on earth, fairly impossible in space. Except with maybe a really really huge
spacestation as a thermal sink, which we won't get for the next few hundred
years I'd guess...

~~~
m4rtink
Aren't the terrestrial mirrors so thick due to the need to survive all the
tilting under the strong terrestrial gravity ?

I would assume a micro gravity only mirror could be much thinner & thus easier
to cool down. Or possible alternative techniques could be used to get the
needed reflective surface geometry if it does not need to take gravity and
atmosphere into account.

~~~
HorstG
Yes, but stability against vibration and thermally induced warping is also
important. So you could make the mirror thinner than on the ground, but not
really thin.

~~~
petschge
You also need a minimum thickness and stability if you ever want to turn the
mirror to point elsewhere.

------
tylerjwilk00
If only there was a company that could launch telescopes into space and get
above all these satellites and atmospheric interference.

------
rjvs
If they could put relatively cheap cameras on the "back" of these satellites
(without them being destroyed when facing the sun) and publish the data they
collect, that might be enough to stem the flow of negative publicity.

Maybe even become a net positive for astronomy? Since the volume and density
of the data collected would increase as the fleet grows, the value presumably
increases as well, hopefully faster than the problems that they create.

~~~
salex89
That's not really how things work. Even with a billion little cheap cameras,
you can't do anything because they still can't see nearly enough as one proper
telescope, which they blinded. As someone other in this discussion said, if
you can see it with your eye, it is way too bright.

------
WhompingWindows
Let's think about this rationally...is there a cost-benefit analysis for
global internet access vs higher fidelity astronomy? Can astronomers use
software and API's to minimize the downsides? Are the upsides for human inter-
connectivity as great as claimed?

~~~
ramraj07
My initial reaction was NO, but then saner minds prevailed and you might have
a point - to be able to get unrestricted internet in China or Iran or India
(didn't realize how bad censorship was even here. And satellite internet is a
criminal offense) would be amazing. We might still not get it though, since
it's not just receiving but also transmitting, so surreptitiously using SpaceX
internet might not be possible in those places.

If you can't solve that problem, then I don't think it's worth it just so some
first world folks can YouTube when camping.

~~~
C14L
Accessing those satellites from China or Iran or North Korea and many other
countries (though, why did you mention India?) will probably still be illegal.

But there are many poor countries with rural areas that have almost no
Internet access and would greatly profit from it. Starlink seems to be
especially useful for people in those areas.

~~~
SiempreViernes
_Are_ there that many poor rural areas that could use and pay for internet? It
seems necessary that they have both electricity _and_ digital devices, which
isn't really something you see in what I would consider _poor_ rural area on a
global scale. You might be thinking of a poor _urban_ area instead, the poor
rural areas in sub-sahara africa rarely have built up _stoves_ , so requiring
electricity is pretty far fetched.

------
AWildC182
NRO already does this. "Stealth" satellites are a big area of interest right
now.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_(satellite)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misty_\(satellite\))

~~~
rtkwe
NRO is willing to spend much more than SpaceX is on these and they're
(probably) much larger giving them more volume to deal with the additional
heat accumulation that comes with a darker satellite.

------
jjaredsimpson
How much of the leading edge of astronomy is ground based, vs space based? Are
they complementary or is space based going to eventually assume any and all
roles ground based could?

~~~
petschge
That depends on the wave length regime.

Radio is firmly ground based, because you need huge dishes and potentially
many (thousands) of them, at very precisely known distances.

IR is mostly space based (with SOFIA and ALMA the notable exception) because
of atmospheric absorption.

Optical is firmly ground based, due to much lower cost for large telescopes.
(See [https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2031216](https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2031216)
for the factors that affect cost). The notable exceptions are Hubble and
satellites monitoring the sun such as Stereo and SDO.

X-Ray is space based again due to atmosphere.

Gamma-ray telescopes are an interesting mix between ground based air cherenkov
telescopes (IACTs such as Hess, Magic and Veritas) and water cherenkov
detektors such as HAWK and space based Fermi (with relatively poor sensitivity
and low upper energy cut off, but very wide field of view).

Neutrino detectors are firmly ground based because the need huge detectors
(the cubic kilometer of icecube is basically the lower limit).

So they are very much complementary. And some things will probably never moved
to space, even if launch was free.

~~~
m4rtink
For radio telescopes, some Very Long Baseline Interferometry experiments have
a space based component:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-
baseline_interferome...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-
baseline_interferometry#Space_VLBI)

~~~
SiempreViernes
RIP Radio Astron :(

[http://www.asc.rssi.ru/radioastron/news/newsl/en/newsl_36_en...](http://www.asc.rssi.ru/radioastron/news/newsl/en/newsl_36_en.pdf)

------
wiredfool
I see a cube sat and I want it painted black

No sparkles any more I want them to turn black.

------
reaperducer
I find this interesting considering that when the threat to astronomy from
these swarms of thousands of satellites from dozens, maybe eventually
hundreds, of different companies was first brought up on HN, there was a
massive outcry from the technosphere saying it was a non-issue and saying that
satellite internet is far more important than being able to see a natural sky.

At least SpaceX seems to be taking these concerns a little seriously.

Also, wasn't there a sci-fi TV show not that long ago that was popular on HN
that had a theme song along the lines of "They can't take the sky from me?" I
guess the lyricist was wrong.

~~~
petschge
Yeah it is interesting that people are more willing to sacrifice the night sky
then exert political pressure to get the horrible internet situation in the US
fixed.

Also interesting how people who could not find the big dipper think that
removing the streaks is "just basic image processing" without knowing anything
how modern astronomy is done. Never mind that professional astronomers are
complaining. Oh and of course you get suggestions like "you can just fill a 30
km bubble with gas in space and use that". As another commenter put it nicely
"everything is trivial when it is somebody else problem".

~~~
reaperducer
A lot of arguments in this HN discussion boil down to "It's not that bad and
it doesn't matter because this will earn Saint Elon enough money will fix it!"

That's like saying "Sure, let the giant industrial conglomerate dump toxins in
the drinking water. That way it can earn enough money to build a machine to
clean the water up and sell it back to us and everyone will be happy!"

Why not just not pollute the water in the first place?

~~~
bscphil
> A lot of arguments in this HN discussion boil down to "It's not that bad and
> it doesn't matter because this will earn Saint Elon enough money will fix
> it!"

This is a forum for engineers (for a broad sense of engineer). We like to talk
about technology. We like to speculate about the future and about politics.
Starlink is a _cool_ idea, so it's not surprising there's enthusiasm for it.

We should not be put in control of anything, ever. If that weren't already
common sense, you'd just need to put half a dozen policy threads from Hacker
News in front of a congressional committee to have them warning of the dire
effects of engineer influence. Stuff we create should be heavily regulated
when it attempts to "disrupt" society, like Uber or a lot of Silicon Valley
startups.

Uncharitably, you might say HN has a ton of Dunning-Kruger about anything not
directly technology related. I wouldn't put it that way: it's everyone's right
to speculate about politics, the future, and values, but most people here
don't actually think they should be put in charge of anything.

~~~
petschge
> Uncharitably, you might say HN has a ton of Dunning-Kruger about anything
> not directly technology related.

It's even worse. It is people thinking that because they are brilliant in some
technical field (JS frameworks, or compilers, or machine learning or whatever)
they are also brilliant in every other technical field (be it astronomy, high
performance computing or medicine).

------
danielovichdk
How did we ever get here? Why is someone allowed to put this many satellites
in the sky, and in the name of money and not science.

These lunatic leaders are taking it too far. I will have to put on my
superhero coat soon, and create some balance

------
msla
If SpaceX doesn't roll out a constellation like what SpaceX is proposing,
someone else will, and that other entity (China, Russia, India, some up-and-
coming African nation) will likely not be as receptive to the complaints of
astronomers when they think their economic future rests on a quick, cheap
Internet roll-out.

~~~
fma
What's stopping other entities from doing it...especially being able to say
"Well SpaceX did it...".

~~~
m4rtink
Mainly electromagnetic spectrum allocations.

------
downrightmike
Why can't they just use modern AI tech to remove the satellites like we do
with people? [https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18715676/camera-app-
bye-a...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/25/18715676/camera-app-bye-ai-ios-
erase-people-price)

~~~
malandrew
I imagine that the bright objects also make it difficult to see less bright
objects so it's not just a matter of removing the brighter objects.

~~~
downrightmike
I see that, but we'll know exactly where the satellites are in the part of the
sky we're watching. It should be possible to remove them automatically.

------
desireco42
You have to give credit to SpaceX for tackling this thing head on. If someone
else was in question, I don't think they would be as responsive.

We are also coming to a point where we have to acknowledge that sky is
changing and astronomy or where we place telescopes should change. Depending
on what is being observed.

