Astronomers Push for Global Debate on Giant Satellite Swarms (nature.com) 98
Aerospace companies have launched about 2,000 Internet satellites into orbit around Earth over the past 2 years, nearly doubling the number of active satellites. This has sparked concerns among astronomers and other skygazers, who worry about interference with observations of the night sky. From a report: Now, in what would be the biggest international step yet towards addressing these concerns, diplomats at a United Nations forum next month might discuss whether humanity has a right to 'dark and quiet skies.' The debate could initiate a framework for how scientists and the public would deal with the flood of new satellites -- with many more expected.
Tens of thousands of satellites could be added to Earth orbit in the next few years to provide broadband Internet, if companies and governments build and launch all the networks, or 'megaconstellations,' they have publicly announced. The sheer number of these could mean that hundreds are visible all night long, affecting the sky like never before in human history. "These constellations are changing dramatically the way space has been used," says Piero Benvenuti, an astronomer at the University of Padua in Italy and a former general secretary of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). He and other astronomers have been working through the IAU to raise international awareness of how the megaconstellations are affecting scientists and members of the public. They say the goal is not to pit astronomers against satellite companies, but to develop a vision of how to fairly use the shared realm of outer space.
Tens of thousands of satellites could be added to Earth orbit in the next few years to provide broadband Internet, if companies and governments build and launch all the networks, or 'megaconstellations,' they have publicly announced. The sheer number of these could mean that hundreds are visible all night long, affecting the sky like never before in human history. "These constellations are changing dramatically the way space has been used," says Piero Benvenuti, an astronomer at the University of Padua in Italy and a former general secretary of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). He and other astronomers have been working through the IAU to raise international awareness of how the megaconstellations are affecting scientists and members of the public. They say the goal is not to pit astronomers against satellite companies, but to develop a vision of how to fairly use the shared realm of outer space.
Right now my biggest issue is Smoke (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Right now my biggest issue is Smoke (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Right now my biggest issue is Smoke (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Right now my biggest issue is Smoke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I'm wondering if space based telescopes could piggy-back off of skylink to send their images down. The space telescopes could be dead simple if they just need basic hardware for capturing images and connecting to skylink, rather than complicating them with other methods of sending the images back to earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I get better internet in fucking Africa.
Your issue is a USA problem, but packing space with satellites is a world-wide problem. If laws are preventing fair competition for broadband within the US, maybe that's where they should start instead of sending a cloud of satellites in space and leaving the junk to be somebody else's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a solved problem but still required more complicated solutions that are a lot more complicated than putting an off-the-shelf SBC in the telescope and connecting to an existing network over standard protocols. Hubble [nasa.gov] sends back 18 GB of data a week. That's a pretty small amount of data. I'm sure we could do more with our telescopes if they had access to Gb/s internet connections.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need satellite based anywhere internet?
Because not everyone lives in or around a city, and rural telecoms are lightyears behind where they should be.
By the way, [satellite based anywhere internet] existed even before
Have you actually tried the incumbent players' satellite Internet? Nearly useless for anything beyond e-mail, and 480p Netflix. It's absolute shit, and it's expensive.
Re:Right now my biggest issue is Smoke (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Stop whining. By 2080 it will only cost $0.10 to launch a kg of material to space, so you'll be able to afford that. So all you have to do is be patient. And live a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
If the main point of contention is whose hobby is more inconvenienced, I'm sure there are a lot more people whose hobbies can benefit from global off-grid internet access than the impact of potentially having some light streaks in some amateur astronomy photos.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Satellite internet is a benefit for those who can afford it. Because of politics we will likely need at least four networks too, same a GNSS.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the single satellite in Geostationary orbit is the lag to send up and down a signal. To get good lag you need a low orbit. To get coverage when you are in low orbit then you need a large number of them.
Unless you have a different solution in mind?
Re: Right now my biggest issue is Smoke (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most discoveries are still from amateur astronomers using telescopes of 6 inches or less. How do you suggest that they get their back yard telescopes into orbit?
The companies launching the constellations of satellites also don't have a right to all of the sky above the Earth.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good luck on trying to get politicians to solve CO2 emissions. Half of them had made a career telling their constituents that those Science guys are in league with their political opponents, so they shouldn't be trusted.
Trying to show them facts and research will just lead to them asking stupid directed questions to prove their point that you are not as smart as they think you think you are. Then discredit you by using your facts against you. Because 25 years ago you foretasted a 0.6c change in climate (w
Re:Right now my biggest issue is Smoke (Score:5, Informative)
This seems to be more of an issue in theory than fact. I've not seen a citation with an instance of a satellite significantly affecting data acquisition. The prevalence of electronic sensors over the last thirty years means that deep sky images are stacked and stacking enables rejection of the 'bad' pixels in a satellite track occurring in just one of the images. When we get a satellite track in one of our images I'm more interested in identifying the interloper than bothered by its impact. Similar for high cadence measurements where a very unlikely track will impact only one data point of a large time series.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Better forest management would also help with the wildfires..
I'll get my rake.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, to get them to tax ALL consumed goods based on where the worst part in terms of CO2, comes from. If they do not want to list all nations (or states) involved, then simply assume the worst and put on a slowly increasing tax.
Global Debate at the UN FTW! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those sternly worded letter are pretty terrifying.
Satellite tax for orbital astronomy? (Score:2)
Instead, impose a satellite tax so you can build your telescopes in outer space.
Re: (Score:1)
Signed,
Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Well all other solution without Taxes are often rejected as unethical, or crosses some line effecting FREEDOME!!!1
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps I have been suffering from dyslexia my whole life. While trying to convert my thoughts into written sentences, I get gaps between my train of thought and what I write, so I capitalize words where I have to think about, this often happens with nouns for me, as nouns and names (which are normally capitalized) so with the combination of a pause in a train of thought, that feels like an end of a sentence in my inner dialog, and the fact the word spelling is classified in the same area as other nouns th
I'm afraid... (Score:2)
... that (space) ship has already sailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Car analogy: Your 93 Escort Wagon has a small dent in the side door so you don't care anymore about driving it at full speed into a tree because "that ship has already sailed".
Re: (Score:2)
More like it has already been through a hail storm...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, when I hit a tree I'm happy - it means I don't have to worry about the brakes not working.
Re: (Score:2)
More like it has already been through a hail storm...
So you should write off a car that none the less still drives? I drove a car just fine with hail damage for 5 years so I don't understand why you feel the need to make a distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
I was pointing out that it isn't like a single dent, and alluding to that there are thousands of Starlink sats, kind of like hail damage leaves thousands of dents in the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, really... what's the end game here? Does anyone really expect our skies to remain pristine forever? We're eventually going to have many, many more satellites, space ships, and orbiting stations, and far in the future, probably foundries, docks, manufacturing plants, etc. It's absolutely inevitable.
I'll bet we have the same debate when the first colony is set up on the moon. We'll never see a "pristine" moon again, which will be sort of sad, but that's also progress.
Priorities (Score:4, Interesting)
If I understand correctly, the professional astronomers should be able to filter out the satellite interference in their observations. But there is no alternative way to give the whole world good internet to using massive swarms of low-orbit satellites (apart from pulling fiber everywhere).
Also, bear in mind that, once the satellites are in their target orbit, they should be almost invisible. And when they are visible, it is at dusk and dawn.
Re: (Score:1)
And you would've been ok if we'd continued thinking the Earth was the center of the universe, right? As long as we could talk to each other efficiently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO - as much as a like astronomy - global low-latency, high bandwidth internet anywhere in the world is more important than hobby astronomy.
Why is it that every time this discussion about actual astronomers having a debate comes up someone dismisses them as a "hobby". Maybe science is more important than your low latency internet "hobby".
Re: (Score:1)
more than half the populace doesn't realize where the greatest breakthroughs in physics since the 1990s come from. "Hobby" indeed, where do these dumb-asses come from? Where did they go to school?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
No, top quark was expected and already in Standard Model. Meanwhile, the discover of *accelerating* expansion of the universe/dark energy in 1998 was and still is huge, and we've yet to realize all implications or make satisfactory model with it. Many big things alongside or right after that, CMB anistropy and Sloan Digital Sky Survey
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Informative)
Read more than the first sentence?
high bandwidth internet anywhere in the world is more important than hobby astronomy.
If I understand correctly, the professional astronomers should be able to filter out the satellite interference in their observations.
Schweini was talking about both, professional and hobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
I did. Yet he decided to frame a post in the way that it's only hobbyist complaining (incorrect), and that professionals are unaffected (incorrect).
Re: (Score:3)
Also, bear in mind that, once the satellites are in their target orbit, they should be almost invisible. And when they are visible, it is at dusk and dawn.
Visible to your eye or to an image has nothing to do with scientific measurements. Even satellites not being lit up by the sun affect those. Do yourself a favour and let the actual experts debate this rather than armchair engineering something you only consider someone's hobby.
Re: (Score:1)
you think astronomy is a "hobby"?!! The greatest breakthroughs in physics since the 1990s were from astronomy.
Pry your head out of you ass, internet boy.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, bear in mind that, once the satellites are in their target orbit, they should be almost invisible. And when they are visible, it is at dusk and dawn.
Also, bear in mind, that if we allow companies to continue pollute our sky with metallic objects that reflect light eventually all we are going to be able to see are those metallic objects reflecting light.
Re: Priorities (Score:1)
Satellite? You had me at low latency.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not understand correctly. Whether you realize it or not, you're just echoing muskmelon bullshit.
Again, not true. All else being equal, visibility is directly proportional to altitude... The ISS, for example, can be visible as much as two and a half hours before or after sunset. Quite a bit of the Starlink an
Re: (Score:2)
Kessler Syndrom is not a big issue for starlink as they are so low the debris would be cleared in a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulated Sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the emphasis be put on forcing space carriers (like SpaceX) to share their constellation like we did when we forced telcos to share their infrastructure with other (sometimes smaller) players? Do we really need 3+ full constellations of LEO satellites so that a few companies can compete with each other?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll worry about that if they ever have enough capacity be able to share. We probably need 3 of them just to provide enough bandwidth for rich folks to stream Netflix out in the sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
That might work in one country or union but I can't see China wanting to share with SpaceX, for example. It will be like GNSS where we have four or five at least (GPS, Glonass, Galileo, Baidu).
They're not fiber .... (Score:2)
I think the main reason for a push to share communications infrastructure was the idea the telcos were laying a bunch of fiber underground that can carry far more data than they even use it for. (Lots of "dark fiber" out there.) The cost to share it with other companies is pretty inconsequential if it provides all the bandwidth the original provider/owner is able to sell anyone, already.
Satellite mesh networks aren't going to have bandwidth to spare.... It'll be a challenge to make one, like StarLink, work
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, we're talking about future unknown number of satellites with unknown orbits made of unknown materials and of unknown size.
Re: (Score:2)
Space telescopes maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say it's pretty likely the satellite swarms will be here to stay unless their functionality is replaced with ground-based infrastructure, etc. Trouble is, ground stations can't give you coverage at sea, and in remote locations, etc. Balloons and drones have been a bust so far. It's unlikely basic science like astronomy is going to win out over commerce. It's honestly hard to know who to support here. I personally really want to support astronomy. I also really want to support advancing technology as well. I'm hoping a good compromise can be reached. In the long run, maybe more space telescopes are the answer. There is the cost issue though. Looking at Hubble telescope costs vs. something like the LSST, it looks like space telescopes are something like 20 times the price currently. The current direction of launch companies, propelled in part by satellite constellations might end up making the space part of space telescopes cheaper and easier though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Now, we are talking. This is the direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's pretty hard to argue that having a high speed network available basically everywhere constitutes advancing technology. While there are, of course, many frivolous uses, there are plenty of serious uses as well. There are plenty of remote research locations that have been served until now only by slow radio links or more primitive satellite connections that will benefit. There are real potential advantages in telemedicine as well. There are many remote sites, many on island nations, that don't ha
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh. Correction. First line should be: "I think it's pretty hard to argue that having a high speed network available basically everywhere _does not_ constitute advancing technology."
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at who builds space telescopes. It's basically the same companies that make spy satellites. In other words, defense contractors. The proper place for telescopes is in space, we just don't have them there because space launches were expensive and space telescopes are expensive. Launches are rapidly getting cheaper. Now it's time to make telescopes cheaply as well. There is probably at least a 10x reduction in cost to be had by standardizing and mass-producing space telescopes and getting th
Re: (Score:2)
Understandable, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most discoveries in astronomy are made from ground based stations, it's far far cheaper. We can do internet everywhere without swarms in the sky, the tech is already here.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get internet in the middle of the ocean?
How do you get internet in the middle of nowhere( after all it more expensive to put cables/mobile towers everywhere)
Time to Tweet Elon (Score:1)
Someone should just ask Elon to launch a bunch of cheap orbital telescopes into orbit above the swarms... I have to imagine a dozen or so 1.5m telescopes would shut some pie holes.
Starlink sighting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not forever. 5 years or so. Hard to find a quote to include here, this is as close as I could come:
In the unlikely event the propulsion system becomes inoperable, the satellites will burn up in Earthâ(TM)s atmosphere within 1-5 years, significantly less than the hundreds or thousands of years required at higher altitudes.
Of course this assumes everything staying away from each other so no Kessler Syndrome; if that happened, all bets are off.
Light pollution... (Score:2)
In the 1970's there was light pollution and in the 1980's about it impacting the night, including astronomical observation. Now it seems the problem is now in the sky itself, and not all the bright street lights. The light pollution was a concern for other reasons (such as a bright light interfering with motorist vision, or causing "artificial daylight" in urban areas) but now it seems one aspect has resurfaced in the very space it impacts. Progress.
JoshK.
This is actually a non-issue for astronomers. (Score:3)
I work with professional and amateur astronomers, and the only time low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, such as Starlink's, are visible is at dawn and dusk, which not a good time for viewing the sky.
Astronomers normally wait until the sun has set well below the horizon before observing, because they need the darkest conditions, and this would also be after the sun has stopped shining on the LEO satellites.
On the other hand, I think it would be revolutionary to have a good internet connection, which wasn't controlled by Hawaiian Tel or Time Warner Oceanic, both of which are expensive, slow and sometimes unreliable.
Kessler effect? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe, but they are quite low and will fall down in only a few years
Clouds, birds, and airplanes (Score:1)
When are they going to ban birds? I fucking hate it when an owl flies across my telescope when I am trying to look at Uranus. At least satellites are predictable to the millisecond and listed in a database. Birds on the other hand donâ(TM)t have a even file a flight plan let alone list their position on a website in real-time. Same thing with big fat ugly clouds. We need to ban clouds and no more flying animals please. That includes humans in airplanes.
Better to... (Score:2)
Astronomers would be better advised to work on establishing bases on the far side of the moon. They could name the first base in honor of Gary Larson.
None of you are paying attention (Score:2)
You don't care about space, just how fast you can stream your game or porn.
*I*, on the other hand, worry that amateur astronomers, of who there are zillions, are going to *not* see the asteroid headed our way..
PERSONALLY (Score:2)
...I'd say the investment of $2bn+ would be better spent on a far-side observatory than on an even-bigger LIGO as is currently postulated.
Plus, if we routinize moon trips and a science base there, we'll have established communal and multinational science access as a norm, before the Chinese get there and build military bases that nobody will dare object to.
This doesn't have to be an "either/or" situation. (Score:2)
With SpaceX claiming that they'll shortly be able to launch 100 to 150 tonne payloads into orbit for $2 million - it's time for astronomers to build more space telescopes. With a 9m diameter cargo bay - and with most of the world's greatest telescopes having between 8 and 10m optics - it's clear that a fully capable, fully modern scope could be put into orbit for comparable construction cost to a similar device stuck on a mountain-top in the Atacarma desert (or whatever). They'll soon be able to do that