[autocorr]

Light pollution from satellite swarms is an economic externality. Any company can dump sewage in the river (and maybe the sewage is necessary for progress!) but the private sector profits by consuming a shared resource.

For the night sky and astronomy the externality is not so great in the grand scheme, but if unmitigated it does mean that there will be fewer discoveries per taxpayer dollar sent to the NSF/NASA. I'm a postdoc in astronomy and am all aboard Starlink-style networking. But it also seems fair to me that SpaceX should be the party that's responsible for treating that externality with light pollution, or else it's the same old "privatize the gains and socialize the cleanup." We've already effectively achieved this for radio astronomy by regulating protected bands in the spectrum for passive listening.

[godelski]

> if unmitigated it does mean that there will be fewer discoveries per taxpayer dollar sent to the NSF/NASA

Fewer discoveries _by ground based telescopes_.

I want to make this distinction because more access to space also decreases the price of space based telescopes. A swarm half the size facing outwards would also be an incredible tool.

(I do want to note to everyone that ground based telescopes will still likely be significantly cheaper for quite some time. But still decreasing the cost of space based telescopes is a huge advantage)

[kalium-xyz]

As far as I know, A lot of people will never have access to an analog space based telescope that they can look though with their own eyes. There will be a lot of people who wont like that.

[robscallsign]

IANAA (I am not an astronomer), but I'm wondering - what are the implications for cheaper commercial spaceflights and satellite launches on research astronomy?

Isn't terrestrial astronomy sort of limited by the Earth's rotation, atmospheric distortion, cloud cover, dust, light pollution, electromagnetic storms, electromagnetic noise, and limited availability of real-estate to place telescopes?

[dylan604]

Yes and no. Yes, if there are clouds, optical telescopes can't see through them. That's why the really big scopes are built high up in the mountains above clouds. They are also being built in the dry desert air to prevent issues from humidity. With AO (adaptive optics), any atmospheric distortion can be compensated and removed from the images. So in some cases, we get better images from ground based scopes than space based. The size of the primary mirror is a huge factor. This image is a favorite of mine that shows the size of various famous telescopes[0]

It's also possible to build larger telescopes on the ground. It just makes more sense and cents to build on the ground than into oribit. However, something like James Webb needs to be in space due to the type of research it is doing. Also why it is getting sent so far away rather than a closer orbit like Hubble.

[0]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/96/23/15/962315f7e4d4f4191de2...

[s1artibartfast]

I don't know that the externality comparison and compensation is self evident.

it is possible that the positive externalities of satellite swarms outweigh that of ground based astronomy, and they should be prioritized for the visual spectrum.

[CamperBob2]

Key word being "ground based." SpaceX's work will likely lead to much wider access to space-based telescopes. That may turn out to be a more-than-fair tradeoff.

The other thing about LEO constellations is that they're not permanent. A polluted river may not clean itself up automatically after a couple of years, but LEO will. We can change our minds about the utility of LEO Internet constellations at any time. There seems no real downside to deploying them and seeing if all stakeholders can find reasonable grounds for compromise.

[stickfigure]

> the private sector profits by consuming a shared resource.

The public benefits from this privately maintained system. Irrespective of who profits, this is a service that I very much want, and I'm perfectly happy if Random Corporation XYZ makes a few bucks as long as I get the service at a reasonable price.

[sjtindell]

"The public" usually refers to the whole community and implies payment through a government or similar scheme. You cannot call your benefit from a private transaction a public good or yourself the public in that scenario. Otherwise literally all commerce is for public benefit. The comment was making a point about externalities.

[godelski]

Exactly. I love space and staring at the night sky. But being able to access the internet anywhere on the planet is world changing.

[mchusma]

I like to describe this position as NIMOP: Not In My Orbital Plane.

The idea that you own a view to infinity to me us more absurd than taxing me for breathing air, which is also a negative externality taken to extreme.

Let's put a quadrillion more times the mass in space. Let's build huge orbital rings, and take to the Galaxy. Let's get a trillion people living in space.

[wumpus]

It's usually called the 'tragedy of the commons'.