Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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