[1053r]

Cheap space launch is the cause of, and the solution to, our light pollution issues.

50,000 satellites would be impossible to launch without the recent step change in the wholesale price of launch. And even 5% of that number of space based telescopes will decrease the contention for valuable instrument time enormously.

Particularly if the next generation space based telescopes used tethers or precision formation flying for extremely large simulated aperture size, we'll start getting phenomenally amazing data. (Even some of the largest ground based telescopes will be possible to compete with in space using large formations of connected satellites.)

So all of the hue and cry around Starlink is really just growing pains. It will hurt some of the science temporarily (particularly around sunrise and sunset), but in the long run, cheap launch is really what the field of astronomy needs to continue to have better and better instrumentation.

[thayne]

That may be true for NASA and maybe the wealthiest and most connected universities and research centers. But that doesn't really help smaller universities or amateur astronomers.

Not to mention that getting a telescope the size of the Keck telescopes into space probably won't be feasible for a long time (although without air pollution you would get similar quality with a slightly smaller telescope). And even ignoring the cost of launch space telescopes are likely more expensive due to needing to deal with the extremities of space like temperature regulation and dealing with cosmic rays (which besides interfering with the computers, also cause noise in the CCD cameras).

[wumpus]

> That may be true for NASA and maybe the wealthiest and most connected universities and research centers.

I work at a well funded university, and it's not true for us, either. In fact I haven't met a single astronomer who is optimistic that somehow we'll magically get enough money to replace even a small fraction of the great telescopes we currently have on the ground.

[BiteCode_dev]

We have to take in consideration that we are weighting space exploration against the comfort of a minority of hobiists. Do you want a thousand people to take pretty pics of the sky, or millions to have rural internet ? I agree we should make sure we don't destroy the night sky view for the naked eyes, but I'm ok with having to see a satellite through my telescope when I look at venus. Not a big deal, and not important to humanity.

[mncharity]

> getting a telescope the size of the Keck telescopes into space probably won't be feasible for a long time

SpaceX is said to be discussing making a telescope out of a dedicated Starship. To simplify the telescope, and periodically return for maintenance. Like the telescopes of NASA's Scientific Balloon Program.

Except... Starship User Guide gives a payload envelope of 8 m diameter, and "100+" metric tons to LEO. Launch cost is TBD, but $30M would be failure (similar to Falcon 9 internal cost), and $2M is said to be an aspirational goal. Which is what a balloon flight costs, for a day or so, a few tons, and couple of meters of mirror.

So 8 m to Keck's 10 m. Half the area. But with balloon speed-tape (aerospace gaffers tape) pragmatics, not Webb insanity. Although... how about a "simple" pivot-out-to-hex of 20+ m diameter?

Starship changes the constraint envelope by multiple orders of magnitude. And that's starting to be reflected in strawman project sketches. Which seem low visibility for now. But unless something goes seriously wrong, very won't be in not a long time. (Edit: removed a misleading sentence).

[handmodel]

I understand the aesthetic argument against this the most.

The weakest argument seems to be the one saying that having satellites in space will help even the smallest universities. It will probably be cheaper for ones with no/old telescopes to split time on one in space than build one from ground that can't find anything new anyway.

[coryrc]

> But that doesn't really help smaller universities or amateur astronomers

And the harm is... some long-exposure photos will have a small aberration if they don't compensate digitally. In exchange, fast Internet access continues to be limited to select areas or the extremely wealthy.

[jfrankamp]

Agree, I think the smart move for SpaceX is to stay ahead of it by offering/working out/subsidizing assembly line style space telescope production and launch w/ benefits to impacted astronomy programs.

I mean imagine if you just enabled a high quality ~cell phone camera in each direction on the existing starlink array etc. Or what if starlink specified a parasite satellite slot that they sold e.g. you can put up x mini sats embedded and facing space with network and power port. It lasts as long as the node lasts, put up a lot and don't complain.

[LeifCarrotson]

I'd love to see more emphasis on smaller, more numerous space telescopes. JWST will be great when it launches, and it's impossible to overstate how awesome Hubble has been, but space is big and time on these largest scopes will be very valuable.

There's a ton of work being done on ordinary 1m and smaller telescopes. As you say, space has big advantages in atmospheric, temperature, sun, and weather factors that may allow a smaller orbiting telescope to do work that would require a larger terrestrial scope. I'd love to see enough scopes in space that (1) ordinary Astro 102 students could do a lab assignment to point a satellite-based telescope at an object and take an image and (2) researchers could have more frequent surveys of the sky to find transient objects.

[ErikVandeWater]

The decreasing wholesale price of launch should also make cleanup relatively easy compared to other areospace marvels.

There are solutions from lasers (photon momentum), to nets that capture debris and then add a sail to it to increase friction from the atmosphere that is still in play in low earth orbit:

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwBRqHqmkCo)

[dmead]

I'm build a dedicated observatory in my back yard? how the hell does this help me do better at astronomy?

[Bronze_Colossus]

That might be a possible future, but why is starlink required in that process? I can definitely see a future where we have space telescopes without giant satellite swarms obstructing the view from Earth.

[unchocked]

Because Starlink finances the development of cheap launch, a demand driver NASA can’t replicate.