Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

iodine_breakfast t1_jafixtv wrote

Why bother with nuance when "Satellite constellation SLAMS astronomers" will get more clicks?

29

beef-o-lipso t1_jafod3u wrote

There isn't a ton of nuance. First it started with Starlink. Everyone poo-pooed the concerns. Then Amazon and others announced constellations. Next governments will do it. In your life time, the impact on astronmical science will be significant and y'all will be,'"Didn't see that coming." Though more like you'll say "Yep, I predicted this."

2

open_door_policy t1_jafowws wrote

Couldn't constellations of satellites provide even better astrotelescopy than anything we can do on the ground?

12

dern_the_hermit t1_jafuzvw wrote

Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous to be going on about "existential threats". It will be somewhat of a nuisance. Astronomy will still happen, data will still be gathered, they'll just have their algorithms remove a few satellites from the thousands of photos taken.

Ultimately this is a problem that indicates its own solution: There's so much stuff up there because launching stuff has got so cheap, comparatively. Since launching stuff is getting so easy we'll be able to pop up space telescopes easier, too.

13

asssuber t1_jag4xjh wrote

At a much higher cost, regardless of the advances in reusable rockets. Not to mention much harder to do maintence/upgrades/change instruments.

Arecibo Observatory didn't even receive enough funding to prevent it from colapsing. You can't replace the entirety of ground astronomy with space telescopes even if it got an order magnitude more funding, that also won't happen.

10

beef-o-lipso t1_jafxsf6 wrote

There is a physical limit on how big scopes can be and we are reaching it. Also, other types of astronomy like radio are impacted by the transmissions.

5

iodine_breakfast t1_jafpd2z wrote

Oh please, we have multiple telescopes in space already. There is no "existential threat" to astronomy. The hyperbole is all I am pointing out here, I don't disagree there will be significant impact.

8

Goregue t1_jai8emq wrote

The vast majority of astronomy research is made using ground-based telescopes. It's completely illusory to think that we could simply launch everything into space.

6

[deleted] t1_jaia7y4 wrote

Correct, astronomy will cease to exist. See how dumb that sounds?

−2

Goregue t1_jaifcml wrote

If ground-based telescope are made unusable, astronomy will stagnate and will pretty much stop to exist. No one will be able to pursue a carer in astronomy when no research projects are possible. Even if space telescopes still exist and a fraction of ground-based telescopes are still usable, astronomy will not be sustainable. Astronomers are not doing science just for fun, they need money to survive and if astronomy cant provide this, they will be forced to move to another field.

0

Sealingni t1_jaig6ya wrote

Sounds excessive. You can see no future where observations from the ground can continue?

2

ChieftainMcLeland OP t1_jafpwvz wrote

How many important ground based observations have been made while space based satellites are looking in another direction? Rhetorical of course but still.

1

iodine_breakfast t1_jafqmbp wrote

I'll say this one last time but I'm not going to beat a dead horse with more replies afterwards: The article title is clickbait garbage. Existential threat has an actual definition that is well understood, and it means threat of being 100% wiped out. This is clearly not the case, despite real concerns for terrestrial astronomy.

13