WiFi costs are a rip off...Drives me nuts that each flat in my building of 36 apartment has to pay for individual routers (or whatever they’re called)...What exactly are these astronomers looking at? Faraway rocks?
2
I for one think that SpaceX a so called private company piggybacking on the knowledge about space flight that U.S. tax payers paid for over decades needs a slap up side of the head and the sooner the better, or they might find that a lot of highly intelligent astronomers will be joining forces with millions of others to find a way to block their intentions, and who knows start another company whose sole mission is to remove light polluting satellites from their moveable perch above our heads.
7
Billionaire's gonna billionaire.
12
They can be made very black.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/science/black-fashion-physics-animals.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage
1
Mr. Musk, put yourself on a rocket and leave planet earth alone.
7
If one billionaire can launch them what's to stop another billionaire from getting annoyed enough to shoot them down.
10
Oh dear god who needs more internet. We should reduce the internet.
3
Look! Up in the sky! ... It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a murmuration of tens of thousands of orbiting Musk transmitters!
6
Tycho Brahe just rolled over in his grave.
5
Oh please spare me the paranoid outrage. How many planes fly every day with strobe lights on and blocking much larger swaths of the sky than a tony satellite.
Also keep in mind the same technology perfected by SpaceX can be used to eventually position all telescopes in orbit where they can perform so much better.
The real story here is that finally we will be able to get Internet access from someone other than Comcast and Verizon.
5
Destroy the earth and destroy heaven. What’s left?
6
We know this guy only cares about himself and his greed. He should be stopped immediately. We don’t need space destroyed too. Enough of this unrestrained capitalism. It has no thought for the good of the world.
7
Oh well. Ensuring everyone has access to the global economy through reliable internet is the priority. If you disagree, give up your internet. Don't ask someone for something you yourself aren't willing to do.
Secondly, Musk drastically reduced launch costs. Im use groups can pay Spacex to launch telescopes for them.
2
Given the fact tat Elon Musk wishes to go to Mars, perhaps he - and why not?, all other billionaires too - should move to Mars and leave us less ambitious humans keep the planet as is, and enjoy the starlit sky and else a normal life and not pions in their get rich game!
4
Why should any one person be permitted to own 60 satellites, let alone instal them willy-nilly wherever he wants. Who did he buy?
8
Astronomers have gotten lazy. They should be building enormous telescopes on the moon. Forget earthbound telescopes.
Work with SpaceX, governments and others to make it so.
2
Fantastic story in the science section about ultra black nano particles and their ability to trap 99.995% of light and how super black also appears in nature. Funny how two competing stories can potentially solve the problem of light pollution.
5
"A spokeswoman from SpaceX said the company was taking steps to paint the Earth-facing bases of the satellites black to reduce their reflectiveness. ... Dr. Tyson’s simulations showed that the telescope would pick up Starlink-like objects even if they were darkened. "
I think a little more data and strategy is required before concluding that astronomy must be ruined by satellites. The are material used for stealth that may be less reflective than black paint.
From a NASA page: "Every day, Earth is bombarded with more than 100 tons of dust and sand-sized particles.". In terms of astronomic interference, how does that compare to N thousand satellites using stealthy non-reflective coating?
As Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics said "... go another 10 years with more and more mega-constellations, eventually you are going to come to a point where you can’t do astronomy anymore. And so let’s talk about it now.”
Right, now is the opportunity to reach an international agreement on using stealthy dark coatings to minimize interference. There are only 11 countries presently launching satellites. Entirely doable.
Re benefits, it could make tracking aircraft much cheaper, connect people so isolated they don't have cell towers, or people travellling out of range of cell towers. And other uses not yet thought of.
3
For the vast majority living in urban areas, ground-based connections will continue to provide the fastest, cheapest, and most reliable Internet connections. This is a social mission Elon Musk is on. Poor people living in rural areas aren't going to pay for these satellites. Further, new technologies are being developed that allow for longer range communications with ground-based antennas. Sprint unveiled High Performance User Equipment (HPUE) in 2016. Google that. That's where things are heading and that's where I would invest my money.
1
"...How much do I trust corporate good will, and how much would a corporation care about the opinion of people who care about science and astronomy?"
Let alone care about the opinion of little old me. But why exactly do we need this?
2
@Jim Cricket Because vast parts of America pay $100 for the internet a month and it is still some of the slowest in the world.
Or look at 4G, still not rolled out everywhere.
The world needs complete communication coverage and that cant be done with wire.
As above, so below. Satellites crawling across the sky and humans crawling all over the planet. First we plunder the earth, sea and air, then next comes the sky. What could possibly go wrong? This smells like a disaster in the making - domino satellite destruction. And it really would be self-induced. We would not be able to blame anyone else for turning the sky into a floating junkyard. The only positive that could come out of this is reduced alien abductions.
11
We are not obligated to spoil the night sky to bring internet to other millions. We are not obligated to feed the world by turning our West into a monoculture devoid of life, We are not obligated to feed the world by despoilng our seas with aquaculture feedlots, we are not obligated to bring water to deserts by bypassing ancient waterways that support local farmers. And so on. If it is not corporate greed, what is it? Blind corporate power. They outsource the problems to the land and the sea and the air and now the sky, and collect the profits. It is a story as old as greed. Nothing new here. Natural capital counts, and must enter into the equation, if we are to survive.
11
Move telescopes to the moon already. But like developers are treated by municipalities, make Musk pay for them since he's the developer.
3
@Jay Sonoma But then there will be nothing for news articles to write rage bait about.
Sure Elon made space telescopes financially reasonable to launch and we hit peak performance in ground telescopes (based on atmosphere and gravity restraints).
But that doesn't tell a nice juicy conflict based story.
1
It seems only logical to me that after trashing this planet that we as a species would just pitch a bunch of satellites into the sky.
Evolution? We have barely scratched the surface of life beyond Earth but we certainly are doing a fine job of hindering future studies. How many dead robots or rovers are wandering decaying on Mars and the Moon?
It makes me sad. Viewing the night sky from the desert is amazing but sadly it’s display will now be altered.
5
Maybe when we have space internet we could find a cure for cancer, Parkinson's, dementia etc.
There are a ton of issues that need to be solved here on Earth so now that 60 satellites are in the sky, cluttering my little view when do we start to see the benefits that they are suppose to being.
Mr. Musk has promised a great deal and has underperformed in the delivery aspect of his great forward thinking. We are all eager for this great push into the new frontier just need to know when it is going to start..
3
If the satellites are not regulated, then there can also be no regulation prohibiting to shoot them down.
I see a new opportunity for the NRA!
All astronomers, lock and load. Let the turkey shoot begin!
7
Am I the only person tired of the media’s fawning over this guy? Enough already. Take your billions Elon and go home. Some of us don’t look at you as a wunderkid but rather a conman. Enough is enough.
8
perhaps astronomers have to thing out of the box, too. The difficulties to build large telescopes on the ground seem to become larger (e.g. Hawaii telescopes). Musk has an ambitious plan to give the internet to all and may have forgotten astronomers. But, I believe that he can be approached to improve the situation (perhaps SpaceX could launch some telescopes for "free"). Astronomers are upset, but Musks satellite coordinates and flight plans are well known; what about the satellite networks and plans of China, India, Russia? I am quite sure their plans will not budge at all with complaints of astronomers. Perhaps astronomers have to think out of the box, too. The difficulties in building large telescopes on the ground seem to become larger (e.g., Hawaii telescopes). Musk has an ambitious plan to give the internet to all and may have forgotten astronomers. But, I believe that he can be approached to improve the situation (perhaps SpaceX could launch some telescopes for "free"). Astronomers are upset, but Musks satellite coordinates and flight plans are well known; what about the satellite networks and plans of China, India, Russia? I am quite sure their plans will not budge at all with complaints of astronomers.
1
The economics of this satellite constellation doesn’t make sense to me. Most of the world lives in populated areas. It makes no sense for someone living a major city, like New York City, to connect to a satellite in space when they can connect to an antenna mounted on top of a skyscraper. Right now, I’m in a very rural area in southern New Mexico and I’ve sent this message over a 4G LTE connection using Sprint’s network. I agree that improvements are needed to connect people in the most remote areas of the world, but satellite Internet already exists for these people. For the cost of building this satellite constellation, they could just build thousands of new ground antennas to reach more people.
5
If we want global access to low-cost high-speed satellite broadband, there is unfortunately no other choice than to put thousands of satellite in very low earth orbit. The night sky is polluted in every major city already. Astronomers are slowly having to pivot towards space based telescopes for better measurements anyways. It's sad we lose our untouched sky but the Internet will be worth it, especially for the billions still offline.
I feel for the astronomers whose scientific measurements will be impacted. But think of all of the terrestrial science that pervasive, economical, global, broadband internet will enable.
From mass tracking of migratory animals to mass observation and measurements of remote locations, we will learn a lot when this system comes online, as we have using telecommunications so far.
Certainly there will be benefits to the faster communication these satellites will provide—which will mean even faster channels of disinformation and pornography, as well as all the good things. But what will the effects of killing astronomy be? Astrophysics helped bring quantum physics, which has so many practical uses now. Let’s take it slow here.
3
Internet for all the impoverished censured people on earth trumps concerns over the satellites. Mankind will devise telescopes to overcome the satellite situation. Cf. the Hubell. (sp).
1
Another reason for concern is that SpaceX plans to send people to Mars before adequate robotic surveys have been done to determine if life is present. NASA has sterilized all craft going anywhere outside the Earth-Moon system, in case there is life present, and has even destroyed orbiters at the end of their mission to preserve planets and moons from contamination. This is not possible with human missions. It is simply outrageous if SpaceX sends a premature manned mission to Mars.
3
I'm an old man who's been partial to astronomy & science all my life. As a kid I belong to an astronomy club & was out every night with my spyglass & telescope. But I've wised up (I hope). Science & the industry that it supports are fast ringing down the curtain on humanity. Who else is responsible for the pollution that is fast making life impossible on our home planet? You're looking for intelligent life among the stars? Let me know when you find it here.
6
The legacy of human advancement in three words: despoil, befoul, repeat.
7
This is truly a terrible idea of this megalomaniac. The last thing we need is to be under constant surveillance around the globe from space. The night skies belong to everybody should remain a uncluttered window to the universe around us.
6
What about the possibility that the orbits will get so crowded that there are collisions and debris? Is anyone in charge of preventing such crowding?
3
The response to this line of worry is that these are in such low orbits, the satellites or any debris will burn up in five years or less. It’s plausible and less worrying than the number of satellites in higher LEOs or the Chinese satellite kill in 2007.
Why is Elon Musk or any private individual/company allowed to do this? We are living in a truly unregulated state. What's next? I cannot even imagine.
8
It seems like another communication corporation company does not like Elon Musk being a competitor. Too little, too late. Go Musk!!!
1
I have a feeling that all the junk we throw around all over the globe will have a very limited life span when fossil fuel runs out, and it will soon. The internet will be a memory when the ability to power heavy manufacturing gets limited. Satellites need boosting to stay in orbit and if they become unstable and unreachable where does that leave us? Humans seem to mess up everything wild and natural that they touch, just give them some time. The trouble is, we can't live anywhere else but on earth, despite space travel fantasies. Wildness will become a rare and wonderful event in a sea of man made garbage.Visual sky pollution is about to rival ocean polution., We are not obligated to pollute the night sky for money and corporate greed; lets save the night sky. Lets plan for an energy scarce future. Lets put greed on hold.
2
I am a Milky Way Chaser. Meaning, I find dark places at night far away from the light pollution of cities to take photographs of our beautiful skies. One day last Spring, as a fellow photographer and myself waited for absolute darkness, I saw those satellites streaming across the sky like a millipede. I literally screamed. I consider this technology to be blasphemy. The night skies and their beauty belong to all people around the world, not for any commercial or governmental entity. Nothing is sacred and I weep at the loss.
21
@Valerie Wells Get over yourself. It's not about you. It's about supplying internet service to the entire planet.
This goes a lot further than destroying our ability to see the night sky. 5G beamed down on us from above and sent to us from mini-broadcasters from poles and buildings every 500 feet will have dramatic negative effects on our health. DNA and mitochondria will very likely be made incoherent. Elon Musk with his irresponsible ego-driven space plans and the telecommunications and tech companies enabling him and profiting by multi-billions of dollars off of what's planned at street level are playing with fire. No testing has been done. A disaster of incalculable dimensions is in the making for all of us.
7
I'm so sick of commercial technology, corporations, rich people, all of it.
16
Certainly progressive space debris and the ability to continue the study of space matters and I generally side with the astrophysicists over the massive corporation. BUT. Many comments here seem to be deliberately dismissive of how big a problem lack of internet/the 'digital divide' is. In fact, some links in this article to the highlight the nuances of the problem Starlink is purportedly trying to solve probably should have been included in this article for context. Lack of internet access plays a key role in wealth disparities and rural-urban clashes. You need it for job hunting, finding resources, your children require it for school, and those with internet access can compound various resources at a faster pace (knowledge based and consumer based). No one has seemed to figure out a better/cheaper way to provide land based internet and the public has not been willing to fork over the tax money to subsidize the infrastructure to otherwise completely unprofitable places. Perhaps these concerns will move the needle on those risk-benefit calculations but I think we are being intellectually and morally disingenuous to just complain how this is all corporate greed and short sighted negligence when no one seems to have a workable alternative proposal/political movement to fix the internet problem.
5
We don’t really *need* an Internet. We in the first world simply want everyone to have it whether they need or want it or not. Forever ruining our sky for this arrogant folly is criminal. Musk, shut it down!
Just like all the all the plastic garbage in our oceans and land we have ALREADY made the same mess in Earth's orbit.
With population growth worldwide ever increasing our response has been disgusting.
5
Not just astronomers: the night sky has inspired artists, poets, and philosophers for literally millenia; it is perhaps the single most universal and enduring poetic image known to man, period.
The first satellites should have been a warning sign. Now it is too late. Can we ever catch and destroy these things?
5
The answer to the good Dr.’s final two-part question is ‘not at all” to both (and in the latter case especially not a corporation run by this guy).
So on the NYTimes website right now, I see a story about the threat of light pollution from reflected light from satellites on the left side of the page and a story about the new carbon-nanotube-based ultra-black coatings that capture almost all incoming light and reflect almost nothing back.
Seems like a match made in heaven (or the heavens) :)
6
Carbon burns ,sattelites have to be rocket safe.
A related but far worse corporate-pollution problem is aircraft noise.
1
As much as I love the internet, etc., I also love my sky. Lately I have noticed more and more satellites shooting across the sky at night. As a matter of fact, it is now commonplace to see at least 2 or 3 every night even during the brief time I am looking up at the stars. Enough is enough.
6
Can we not do anything with proper planning? Can we not look at a set of facts and reasoned assumptions and make a balanced decision?
I don’t think the US is going to survive as a first rate power of its leaders are incapable of rational thought
6
Capitalism has cancer y'all. I've always considered myself a moderate who favors capitalism plus a good social safety net. But now I am dumbfounded. Capitalism has cancer. We need to discuss a treatment plan with some qualified doctors. The sooner the better.
16
It’s not capitalism that’s the problem but the people in our three branches of government who have collectively decided that the rights of the few (wealthiest of us) should never be threatened much less questioned by the rest of. Regulated capitalism serves the many, while the deregulated version serves the few.
2
Yes, metastasizing into space unfortunately.
1
Who decides that adding 30,000 satellites to near Earth orbit is an acceptable amount of pollution in exchange for global wireless internet? And what's to stop another country from shooting down those satellites if it's determined they are causing problems for other critical systems and activities? And considering Musk is convinced that AI development is our biggest existential risk, why does he think a global satellite network (ie recon system) is good idea? I wonder if those satellites aren't up there doing something else we don't know about, because otherwise this seem like a terrible idea.
9
Why are American corporations allowed to mess things up for astronomers world-wide? We'd be furious if Russia put so many objects in the sky that it interfered with the work of American astronomers.
20
If all of the 30000 satellites were the size of a small school bus of about 100 square feet they would take up 1/10 of a square mile. The surface of the earth is well over 57 million square miles and the orbit area is well above that. It seems to me that it’s going to be near impossible to seriously crowd the sky. I’m sure technology can be developed to filter any reflections.
@Tim Phillips. They might not be a problem if 1) the satellites didn't move and 2) the Earth didn't move. What happens when one of those many satellites wanders in front of a galaxy that's undergoing a long-term exposure? If the pixels are removed to filter out the satellite, there goes the galaxy, too.
8
@Tim Phillips ~
SO the people with a combined experience of many centuries are making this up?
Want to work for the Trump's EPA?
3
I trust the scientists to know what gets in the way of their work.
4
I find it interesting that providing internet to the globe is seen as corporate greed. There are many parts of the Earth where decent internet does not exist. No one is building infrastructure in 3rd world nations. A system like this could be a major boon in bringing internet to those who have no other options.
3
I agree let’s not dismiss the action as corporate greed. However I’m still concerned because we need to observe the night sky to find out asteroids and other threats to the earth and the space station. Space science itself is also worth preserving regardless of whether our generation can benefit from it.
1
Comical that musk was using the service to tweet. The sky is falling to corporate greed and magnificent night skys won't be the same. Isn't there enough space junk already?
Has anyone stopped to look at the international space station? It's cool to see a living laboratory streak across the sky. Presumably much smaller, but I cannot imagine seeing 12k let alone 30k satellites in orbit. Telescopes and observing the universe help us understand concepts beyond our realm and previous reach. What does musk, then Amazon, Google, & other companies launching thousands of other satellites give us? Being able to tweet and check social media? Perhaps that's what doomed the dinosaurs.
8
When discussing things in space, it’s hard to have a handle on scale. 60 of these satellites take up less space than just one node is the ISS. They’re far smaller, and at this point can’t be seen unless you’re really searching.
"searching"
Isn't that the point of telescopes?
3
Didn’t read the whole article, huh?
Ego Must triumph. Sorry about the trifling inconvenience Scientists, but my wondrous plans eclipse your stodgy pursuit of fact every time.
1
Get govt out of science.
That’s a horrible idea. Science driven only by profit is not what our future needs.
2
I’ll never buy a Tesla. Maybe he’ll get the message. Dark skies must be protected. U.N., where are you when we need you.
8
@Cliff R Who wants to buy a zero emissions automobile? Tesla has been paving the way for vehicles that will greatly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. They make power walls that help reduce our need for coal power. We must stop this evil that threatens to save us from climate change.
3
tesla aren't the only electric cars. If one also wants to support learning more about the universe, protecting night skies is important too. Musk isn't the only company looking to block out the night sky unfortunately.
3
@Cliff R
"Dark skies must be protected" from corporate greed, you say. I agree.
May not seem connected, but I'm copying here my comment from Kristof's "Loneliness" article yesterday, answering a comment favoring Daylight Savings Time year-round. Here's an excerpt:
"...you are more of a "day/morning person" than a "night person".... I don't think you should assume your particular preferences & personality apply to all. I for one (like so many, many, many others) prefer earlier onset of nighttime.
Daylight savings time is, as the term itself indicates, a scheme to increase the number of daylight hours, so the sun sets later on the clock. DST is the government's program to accommodate people like you (at my expense). When we turn the clock back in fall, that's just an all-too-brief return to standard time based on the position of the sun (peeking at noon). In early March we move the clocks forward to have the sun set at a later hour, starting daylight savings time. DST was originally instituted for energy conservation & economic stimulus (more daylight for shopping & productivity) generations ago. But it was massively expanded by 4 weeks by George Bush around 2002, primarily to accommodate business lobbyists. A number of serious public health problems (spike in heart attacks, children injured or even killed commuting to school in the now dark early morning, hit by cars, etc.) result. I "agree" with you DST is a total disaster (most especially G. Bush's expansion!!!).
3
These satellites won't function forever. What provision for their retrieval did the FCC require? And, who authorized the FCC to approve this incredible trashing of the world's skies?
13
"...preliminary results suggest that avoiding the satellites would be difficult during twilight — a serious problem given that potentially hazardous asteroids and many objects in the solar system are best seen during this time."
So now we may not be able to track potential threats to Earth, courtesy of Starlink. Thanks, Elon, because we all know that faster download speeds are more important.
6
May seem far-fetched, but I'm thinkng of the movie the Herzog movie "Aguire" based on conquistadores' forays into South America seeking the fountain of youth. As I recall, the film showed the hubris of these explorers who believed that by sticking a flag in a vast territory as yet unclaimed by other European counterparts, ownership could thereby be claimed. The leader of the expedition in one memorable image, while gorging himself on mangoes, points to the east and says, " I claim this land for Spain." Then he does the same in the other directions. (Or something like that.)
Now we have tech-geeks who make fancy gadgets, softwares or websites that putatively improve our lives enough for vast numbers of people to subscribe or buy, and based on economies of scale, infinitesimal overhead per individual customer (or, additional profit even,when data can be harvested and sold, making negative overhead), getting billions and billions of dollars.
Then they use these billions to colonize space like the conquistidors invading the Americas, as portrayed in the Herzog film. We need policies **now** establishing that space is not to be colonized or conquered by private individuals or corporations.
We need a review of American theories of property, and how they must be revised to prevent private colonization and conquest of space, starting with Locke who sowed so much confusion. Locke said (as I recall) that by getting someplace first & combining your labor with it, it becomes yours...
7
Giving up on astronomy and physics and discovering the origins of the universe is all worth it if we can just send a teenager’s OMG text message faster. And we can get Russian election propaganda from all areas of the sky now.
15
My God, what a horror.
All so that we can blanket the globe with more useless Tweets, Facebook posts and online porn.
And in turn, lose our connection with the ancients, to be able to stand in silent wonder, peer skyward, and wonder what it all means.
14
Yet another reason to stop these arrogant billionaires in their tracks.
9
The problem isn't just astronomy:
What happens to those 30.000 potential Starlink satellites when a better, faster and cheaper land-based technology for wireless internet is developed, making them obsolete? What happens when SpaceX (or whoever operates Starlink) goes bankrupt?
30.000 pieces of useless spacejunk will hover around the earth - who will clean up that mess? And more importantly: who will pay for the clean up? I bet it wont be Musk, it will be You and me!
We need clear rules and laws for Space! Now!
17
We have better telescopes in space. Earth-bound instruments no longer needed.
1
And who will pay for those telescopes? Not universities. Not governments. Astrophysics generally isn’t immediately profitable so not corporations.
Space telescopes - easier said than done.
2
@Bill Wilkerson. Some of the newer Earth-bound telescopes rival what we have in space, with the advantage of being less expensive. They can also be repaired and upgraded.
There are times when only a space-based telescope will do, but modern technology allows ground-based telescopes to do things that were impossible a decade or so ago.
4
Corporations, and more specifically billionaires, should not be allowed to remake the earth. One person should not be allowed by whim to irrevocably alter the lives of every human being on earth. What if one of these billionaires decides he's going to "solve" climate change all by himself by, oh, shutting out sunlight (as has already been foolishly proposed)? And Mr. Musk is using Twitter via his ego-trip satellite armada? So he's taken banality off the earth into the cosmos.
7
If there are no rules for putting them up there, surely there are no rules stopping an organization from destroying them.
10
@Jim A
Love it! I can see it now: "The Ultimate Laser-Tag Target Shooting Game!" (TM pending)
To Elon Musk....please stop. Please suspend this at least until we know what the implications are. We are headed for the end of ground-based astronomy, impairment of our ability to identify possible hazards to the planet, and a profound global change to our night-time landscape.....all for what may be nothing more than one more option for an internet connection.
13
The article is a huge exaggeration. SpaceX satellites won't be visible with a makes eye, the newer models have drastically less albedo than the first batch.
They will be a problem for astronomers, but there are known ways to mitigate that. Yes, astronomers will have to do a lot more postprocessing, no it won't be the end of the world for them
@Cyberax. So, who will compensate the astronomers for the additional computer power that they will need? In addition, since there will undoubtedly be times when post-processing won't be enough and new images will have to be taken, there will be greater demands for telescope time? Will SpaceX pay for additional telescopes?
5
"Frightening" is a good word within this article. That is, it's good if you want to deal in emotion rather than objectivity.
If an 'expert' is frightened, you should be terrified, right?
1
As a species we have an unconscious, collective drive to destroy our environment. Now we need to add space to land, oceans, and air that are all being severely degraded.
9
As a long time resident of an inner suburb of a big city who cannot seethe milky way I am sad and as a life member of the Dark Sky Association I am appalled.
7
If we put enough satellites in orbit we can block the sun light and stop global warming. Then we could continue to pollute the earth without fear of climate change. That's my theory and I am sticking with it. Sounds like a good theory for a Republican website.
6
If you break it, you must fix it. Is there a plan how to retrieve them when they become obsolete or non-operational? How about cleaning up debris from collisions? If these funds aren't placed in a trust, then a tax should be imposed to create them.
5
At a time when our telescopes and other visual observational techniques have pushed the limits of light gathering to see objects that never would have been visible to the eye, we now have any further advances thwarted by stunningly bright objects that really do not need to be in orbit.
The ONLY reason those satellites are up there is to make more money for Musk. Is there presence an absolute must? No.
There other ways to get service, and this one is not cheap even if it were the only one.
This really needs to stop, and now. What is already up there would be nearly impossible to remove, and to add to this many times over is not only irresponsible, but one man and company is going to doom future research for centuries.
4
So eventually there will no way to sleep in the dark at night unless one wears a mask or uses heavy curtains?
Won't camping be fun!
3
There was a time in history when men like Elon Musk would take big risks, venture into the unknown and conquer new worlds and be seen as heroes of humanity.
That time is now past.
Instead of these guys and their bright ideas for changing the world, I think it’s time we looked to women like Malala Yousufai and girls like Greta Thunberg who can help us keep the world we have and improve education and health as the true heroes.
6
So this is about gender? Forget the men, turn to women, because you don’t like some satellites? That’s really not very well thought out.
2
@DRS, Look at all the men who claim global warming is FAKE. Women are better at nurturing.
Just as the inconsiderately placed skyscrapers that obscure the view of the Chrysler Building and the sweep of the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges were allowed to clutter our earthly horizon, now they have to clutter the sky.
Guess I will pass on learning celestial navigation. But more importantly, if I wish on a star and it is really a satellite, will my wish still come true?
2
There are at least two far more serious problems with this many satellites. The first is space debris. Space debris has already destroyed one or two satellites, and there is reason for concern that launching tens of thousands of satellites will make it impossible for future generations to launch any satellites. Will these satellites burn up completely in the atmosphere when they have outlived their usefulness? If the answer is not unequivocally yes, we should not launch them. Period.
The second relates to our ability to identify and track asteroids and comets that might threaten our planet. The odds of a comet or asteroid large enough to do harm coming our way is low, but it is not zero. The consequences are so severe that before long we will wish to protect ourselves from this potential catastrophe. Impacts have caused massive extinctions several times in this planet's history, and more minor but still worrisome impacts are not uncommon.
If these satellites make it more difficult to identify asteroids headed our way early enough to stop them, we should think twice, and probably three or four times, before launching the satellites.
11
Thanks to NYT for publishing this article. Policing this type of activity i believe is well within governments province. "The stars belong to everyone the best things in life are free".
8
I am weary of hearing about and seeing intrusive technology that destroys the natural earth, seas or sky described as "benefits to humanity." The humanity "benefited" is a microscopic number of the humans disturbed and disoriented by the loss of millions of years of guidance from the celestial overarch. This was a very stupid stunt.
13
Hmm. Internet in the sky. I hope they name it Skynet. That would be too obvious.
6
For one person to ruin forever the sight of the ancient night sky is absolutely obscene.
The day Musk shot a Tesla into space was the day I was no longer indifferent to him, but instead hated him.
I would like him stopped.
21
Imagine having a fat data pipe to an array of observatories around our poles!
Anyway, I really don't see these as hindering the big scopes on the planet, and for amateur astronomers, you're most like stacking photos for any real photography. I think internet everywhere outweighs these hypothetical doom scenarios.
We have planes everywhere, cars everywhere, our oceans are filled with plastic, people are STILL having kids! There's enough real-world damage each of us are doing to the planet without worrying about possibly seeing a tiny dot of light in the night sky if you happen to live where it's even dark enough to really see stars.
1
I just hope they didn't put AI up there - we do not need the Terminator movies to come true. "Skynet" - this looks like the start of it. Stop it.
2
Who owns the sky exactly? Is it first comers? This sets a ridiculously unwise precedent.
5
There's something very strange about this uproar. It's as though someone decided to whip up opposition to Elon. This paper is already on record as being intensely anti Tesla, which is perplexing when you consider how pro-environment it is otherwise. .Odd
We suffer from severe light pollution - and have for decades.
There are many satellites in the sky - there have been for decades.
There are many other forms of pollution we hardly talk about - for example noise pollution. Have you even tried to visit a national park, aka a human zoo, in recent years?
I myself like nature, and dark, and quiet. I like being out in the middle of nowhere, by myself, and looking out at the galaxy. Most of you don't care about noise at all, as evidenced by the volume of incessant loud talking, yelling and music playing anywhere there are people. You don't make the effort I do to get away from civilization. You don't drive days on end to camp in the middle of nowhere. Alone. I do. I still have to drive an ICE, which bothers me greatly, there's light pollution almost everywhere, there's trash and noise, almost inescapable. You all are doing this - the trash, the noise. The light is from civilization.
All this light emission brings benefits to mankind, and, with it, tragically, loss of our natural environment, and likely harm to us and all animals.
Yet out of all the zillion intrusions, for some reason Elon's Starlink, and his companies in general, are singled out for hate. It's bizarre.
3
@Person. True, we have severe light pollution in many places. That's why telescopes aren't located near urban areas. So, why would you expect the NYT to focus on it?
1
All of this to shave a few fractions of a second off of transmission times between financial centers to try and one-up competition in electronic trading. Billions to be made.
6
Elon Musk is a corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch by nature and nurture. So is Jeff Bezos and all of the other Silicon Valley new gilded age robber baron malefactors of great wealth.
Trying to protect the sciences of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology and physics during the exploration of space from the profitable technology needed for exploration including the militarization of space is a potentially existential grave problem.
8
Why does any corporation get to determine every single human being’s relationship to the night sky? The imperial impulse is alive and well, the colonial imperative is as robust as ever, but the appropriation of the meaning of a starry night and the experience of moonlit darkness by greedy white techno nerds who happen to be rich beyond measure is obscene. This is the way one guy ruins everything for everyone else FOREVER. The others will follow.
4
If scientists are so concerned about space junk lighting up the sky, what do they think about the day sky filled with contrails and the earth covered with evidence of humans ravaging the landscape for centuries...
Yesterday there was an article about scientists underestimating climate change...
Who cares about night skies when the earth is about to lose the oxygen we need to breath...
this fish tank is getting awful dirty...
4
@Kenneth. You know, it really is possible to be worried about more than one problem at a time. We can be concerned about climate change AND scientific progress simultaneously.
This night sky belongs to all of us and not just Elon Musk. He and others like him have no right to take away from us this most beautiful sight!
9
I love astronomy and astrophysics; I really do and have studied it since the 1970s and it's the #1 reason why I went into physics.
But complaining about the night sky, while currently warranted, is not justifiable in the long-run.
If astronomers are really worried about the night sky, then start doing astronomy in space: Solicit funding for the research and eventual establishment of 1 or more bases on the moon where astronaut astronomers can do their work relatively unimpeded by Earth's satellites and electromagnetic interference.
Old Adage:
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Mothers of Invention's late great Frank Zappa):
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Apple:
Think different
1
We haven’t even sent anyone to the moon in a long time, never mind astronomers. And money for establishing a base and whisk people back and forth ? Americans are already riding on the back of Russians just to get to the ISS.
@ml
So what.
This is irrelevant.
We can't put human progress in every other field just because it makes life difficult for astronomy.
So, the IAU ought to establish some long-term plans on starting to do observational astronomy either on the moon or in orbit. I'd recommend the moon long-term for a variety of reasons.
Astronomers - and I love them and almost became one - don't have a monopoly on space.
Sure, it may cost a lot but so did the initial space program in the 1960s (I am almost 57, BTW).
Right now, NASA doesn't have a monopoly on US involvement in space anymore and, with the private sector now involved as well as other nations, the costs will go down and astronomers won't have to rely on the charity of Congress.
So, the IAU should put out a long-term international plan with a long-term funding plan (perhaps through charitable donations) and make it happen.
@VJR. Since SpaceX is the one profiting from interference with ground-based telescopes, do you believe that it should cover the costs of relocating our observaties to the moon?
Or, to you prefer to privatize gains and socialize costs?
2
What people should really be thinking about is the precedent this is setting. If this is okay for one corporation, what about the hundreds of thousands of other corporations that will follow suit?
4
The use of space for private enterprise should be regulated (preferably stopped) to prevent pollution of any sort. This staggering numbers of sattelites will massivly add to an already disastrous situation of artificial, man made sattelites in a part of our world that is mostly free of pollution - light, chemical, nuclear, electromagnetic radiation, or otherwise. The treaty to keep Antarctica clean and exploitation free is an example of successful international cooperation.
It is particularly concerning that a private company, for profit motive will cause such damage to the planet, which by the way, cannot be reversed or repaired. Such enterprise should not be allowed as the technology to remove those satellites does not exist or is far too expensive.
How can one nation's agency give permission to affect what is mankind's "property" is also an important issue.
5
Well nations first my grandma, but just how are you going to regulate what another country does? I guess you could tariff or sanction them or go to war or maybe even build a wall. You can’t just shoot a satellite down ‘caz they’re not exactly . . . even if you get past the sitting duck problem, if you zero in and smash one those pesky flying saucers, then you’re going to have even more orbiting glitter.
An agency needs to regulate this in the same way that spectrum is regulated by the FCC. There is finite "bandwidth" even in the sky, and there needs to be a charge for each "spot" in the heavens. And that fee should go back into the public coffers. This is "land" in the classical economic sense and the commons, and rent for it belongs to all of us.
There's no more sense in duplicating satellite paths than there is in laying multiple coax cables into everyone's home.
Some of that cost should go towards cleaning up dead satellites, or holding the companies responsible.
8
"His preliminary results suggest that avoiding the satellites would be difficult during twilight — a serious problem given that potentially hazardous asteroids and many objects in the solar system are best seen during this time."
An imminent, undetectable asteroid strike may be just the solution we need.
The night sky is a-twinkle with an artificial glow,
as satellites go whizzing round and round, all to-and-fro.
Elon Musk and others fill the heavens with such junk,
the Moon no longer blossoms and old Mars is in a funk.
If we keep adding satellites to those now up above,
there'll be naught but an eclipse when the pushing comes to shove.
1
Reentry debris is another issue since orbits eventually decay. Perhaps there are technical solutions (like directing the debris into the oceans) but I’d like to know how foolproof they are. What we don’t want is thousands of mini-Skylabs raining down on us.
3
Not to dismiss the very valid issue raised in this article, it won’t be mini-Skylab, nor mini-mini-mini Skylab. So on this point we are safe.
"...will help astronomers better understand dark energy, dark matter,"
You cannot have a "better understanding" when you have no understanding to begin with. Astronomers (and everyone else) have no idea (aka understanding) of what (or why) dark energy and dark matter are. They are only called "dark" because we are in the total dark about them, Neither can be detected directly, but only, in theory, deduced , or guessed at. Dark energy may be several thousands of different kinds of energy as dark matter may be millions of different forms of matter. Or a very large spider. Well, maybe not a spider.
1
Urban dwellers stating, ‘I don’t see stars so it doesn’t matter...’ Well this tech also doesn’t really impact you, you’re already wired in.
The urban technological centers have engineered a system to bring their technology and way of life to the rural parts of the world... Has anyone asked the rural parts if they want that, and all that comes with it?
Ref: yesterday’s op-ed on loneliness and the role tech has played in that. Ref: imperial conquest throughout history. Ref: Trump’s election in large part on sentiment that Rural America is being cast aside.
1
I’m sorry, but who asked me? I mean, who asked us, the people of the planet? If something goes wrong, have they run tests on how to get all those satellites out of space? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Just a megalomaniac using space and our sky as his playground to make more money. I seriously would rather have land lines than the night sky ruined.
21
The masters of the universe are going to do whatever they like, no matter what they destroy in the process.
6
Corporations do not have the right to destroy our views of the night sky. They do not have the right to deposit what will become detritus in orbit. What will happen to malfunctioning satellites/ debris? Will elon be forced to clean up his mess? Or will they linger forever like mine tailings from the 19th century? Stop corporate greed now!
389
@oldbugeyed Without occasional "reboost", to compensate for atmospheric drag (there is some, even at those altitudes), the satellites will eventually "fall back" towards Earth. They are designed to burn up before reaching the surface.
Furthermore, they are very unlikely to have a significant impact on the night sky - if you refer to unaided human vision. [It's conceivable that some animal species might be impacted in an unforeseen manner.]
The only likely significant damage is to ground-based astronomy - but that damage will likely be devastating, unless a means can be found to greatly ameliorate it.
11
@oldbugeyed These mini-satellites like the Starlink constellation have a lifespan of only about 5 years, after which they burn up in the atmosphere (they're very low orbit). So the "mess" cleans up rather quickly.
Personally I find the idea of man made structures visible in space with your naked eye absolutely amazing. I will be sure to point these out to my kids. We need to keep pushing the boundaries, humans can't stay in the cradle forever or it will become our grave!
3
There are currently many, many satellites for you to show your children. In dark skies you can easily find one every 30 minutes or so. There are other, much more awe inspiring sites than man made satellites as well. Many of these require very dark skies and long photo exposures to see in all of their beauty. Some are hundreds of light years away. Some are millions of light years away. Reflective man made satellites create huge tracks across long exposures and ruin the view of galaxies containing more stars and planets than you can scarcely imagine. Progress? Sure, why not? But to ruin the view of the rest of our universe in the name of progress for this little spec of space dust inhabited by 8 billion tribal, warlike dust mites? Meh, I don't need that kind of progress.
19
Why not move telescopes into space to look past low earth orbit satellites and our own airborne pollution?
The Arecibo Observatory is 1000 feet wide. Not all observatory’s can be moved to space.
Without regulation, invasions like Musk’s happen. Musk’s outlook does match anyone else’s and humanity could poorer for it. Stop him, recalculate his goals with others who have as much right as anyone to use the skies overhead and parse the usage accordingly. NOW.
4
How is it not insanity to let these tech people and Rocket Men fire things into space?
8
Maybe these satellites should only be allowed to fly during the day so they won’t be seen.
@John Doe
Better yet, let's get Elon Musk to stop the Earth from rotating on its axis. Then we get to have Robert Frost's "perish twice"" all at once:
FIRE AND ICE
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
2
There are millions of people who do not have internet access and the rest of us pay exorbitant prices through the cable companies. We need to ask why internet access cant be available worldwide when we know it could be. The cable companies are robbing us. SpaceX is partially funded with taxpayer money so we should be mad.
1
Appalling! This is a matter for the world to decide, not just the US.
4
"(1) How much do I trust corporate good will, and (2) how much would a corporation care about the opinion of people who care about science and astronomy?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#1 As far as I could spit.
#2 As far as they could spit when lots'o money is involved.
2
Some folks were appalled at the sight of the American flag on the moon. How does the rest of the globe’s population feel about an American business mucking up the globe’s night sky?
4
We've destroyed our planet so now we are taking to the skies. The moon and Mars are next!
4
This kind of reminds me of the alien invasion movies. In them, the entire planet comes together to defeat the "evil" invaders.
Can we imagine an international agreement to protect astronomy? The U.S. is currently the most responsible nation for these satellites, but every country with the technology will also launch whatever they can, be it for communications, defense, whatever.
The astronomers will have to launch space telescopes beyond the light pollution caused by these thousands of satellites. We cannot agree on a stupid phone call within our own country. Can you imagine 200 countries agreeing to a satellite moratorium?
33
Humans, in all their gory activities, are essentially nefarious and lack wisdom. These qualities are worse, much worse with technological 'progress'.
no wonder misanthropy feels right.
2
Somebody's (probably China) gonna get rich in the space junk hauling business very soon. All we'll need is some of our garbage to fall on a house. It won't be long. Just wait.
Elon Musk got billions from Obama to create green cars.
This is what he is spending our money on.
Can he be tried for fraud?
6
Tesla got funding and created electric cars as planned.
Since you didn’t know it, SpaceX just happens to be another company developed by the same guy. They don’t share funding, and Tesla is not funded by NASA neither.
How is this legal?
7
This is an aspect of evolution. The night sky wasn't the same from the day we first used natural gas to light the streets of Peking through bamboo pipes in 500 BC. Get over it.
China are also planning to send 100,000 mini civilian and military satellites to space. Russia, India, Japan and South Korea may follow
1
Yet another example of the super-rich Masters of the Universe (and their toy corporations) destroying fir profit, not paying for their destruction, and leaving the wreckage for everyone else to deal with. Sickening.
4
This is progress and a great step for the average human, grit your teeth and give Musk the credit he deserves. The satellites won’t be visible once they reach higher orbit anyway. Should SpaceX suddenly collapse, the satellites would inevitably burn up in the atmosphere through orbital decay. This idea of a bunch of random debris floating though space is fiction. Besides, what child doesn’t love looking up at the night sky and seeing a satellite cruising across the stars?
Space, the exploration, and utility of the same, belongs to all of humanity. It should be regulated by elected governments, not be the playground of impulsive, egotistical oligarchs. This is disgusting.
6
As an amateur astronomer, this is just another in a series of long, sad days for those who want to see the sky as it existed for all the ages before the invention of the electric light bulb.
I already have to drive six hours to get to a site dark enough for views unhindered by a significant urban light bubble, and I'm one of the relatively lucky ones living in the American West. Good luck to my poor friends east of the Mississippi.
Now my views and photographs will be littered with the trails of tens of thousands of "new" stars that cannot be avoided by any means available to those of us trapped on the surface of this planet.
We will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
5
Question: is there any limit to the number of companies that will toss out 30,000 satellites into low-earth orbit?
Right now it's just three or four companies wanting to deploy some 100,000 satellites in total, but what happens when there are a hundred of them each wanting to set up these satellite networks? Or 200? Or 300?
1
“It’s more of a philosophical question,” Dr. Donahue said. “It kind of boils down to: How much do I trust corporate good will, and how much would a corporation care about the opinion of people who care about science and astronomy?”
There is no such thing as corporate good will, if there isn't a dollar value in it, it won't happen.
Musk, Bezos et al should pony up and pay to replace each telescope that loses the ability to work due to their systems. A couple of multi-billion dollar James Webb style "eyes in the sky" might take the profits out of their ventures but it might allow us to find the next earth impacting asteroid or, better yet, allow us to see the Vogon constructor fleet before it arrives.
1
I think that astronomers or SpaceX could develop a system to block the light from a satellite from entering a telescope. Astronomers know where they are looking, and SpaceX knows where its Starlinks will be. It should not be too much of a trick to program a drone (Vanta Blackbird) to fly between the satellite and the telescope when the satellite is in the field of view. This system might be inexpensive enough that amateur astrophotographers could use it to preserve their exposures.
1
The space above our atmosphere as an unregulated libertarian free-for-all, what could possibly go wrong?
Where will this end? Weaponized satellites that shoot at objects coming too close or trying to steal their spot?
3
I live in the Northeast, in a city. I haven't seen a star in years - too much light pollution and too many buildings. I was out in rural AZ a couple months ago and saw the Milky Way. You could have knocked me down with pure starlight. All that is already denied to us in the cities.
8
I suspect that some of the head tripping craziness that goes on these days is from a loss of our primordial & essential connection with sky and land. With Earth! The thought of satellites transforming the mystery and magic of a night sky & little buzzing Amazon drones dropping off packages nearer to Earth is disturbing beyond words. Human beings are spiritual beings as well as animal and the stress of this overstimulation will do harm. The craven self-interest of mostly youngish men who see grandeur and big bucks in manifesting their adolescent dreams is apparent. No holistic balance or ecological good sense. No common good. Who will stop 'em? If not now when?
5
When the future brings waves of individuals like Musk who rise above all geographical boundaries and single handedly threaten the beauty of the night sky for all of humanity, then each of us on this planet need to be empowered to some degree to defend against it.
6
Sorry, astronomers. If there's a buck to be made improving people's connection to Facebook and to cat videos on YouTube, your clear skies are going to be toast.
7
This reminds me of the oil and gas companies and the governments of Indonesia and Brazil allowing the legal burning of their forests. Their actions are destroying the planet. An objective, observable fact.
Enter Musk with his goal to commercialize outer space. He is destroying the science of astronomy and impeding potential scientific breakthroughs and insights that would further the science of astrophysics which in turn could lead to scientific breakthroughs on earth. An objective observable fact.
Incredibly short sighted and immature. Based on this article there is nothing stopping China or Russia from doing the same.
4
Well they didn't ask us. But anyway. The only purpose mentioned in the article, I think, is internet. Jeez. Seems like a bad move.
2
Might be a crying shame that we miss the next big asteroid about to hit the Earth due to the thousands of satellites blocking the view. On the upside, we'll be able to Tweet about it right up to the end.
11
Why are we giving billionaires permission to ruin our sky and blind our astronomers just so they can make more money? This should be a no brainer. The answer is a resounding NO!
11
It's even worse than what others have posted. All that is needed are proper ground based wires going to rural areas as well as underserved countries. When you put 100k satellites (there are more companies with the same plan) up in the sky there will be a collision that will cost lives and for nothing. This isn't even advanced technology, it's just pollution coupled with hubris.
Rgrds-Ross
6
US doesn't own the sky. It's the property that is concerned to the whole world. FCC doesn't have the right to give permission to ruin the view of night sky.
9
If the goal is to make space travel easier, why is it ok to continue to launch satellites into space, which only clutters space and makes exit/entry points more challenging to navigate?
3
Astronomy is a lifelong passion of mine. In another life, with slightly different opportunities and influences, I might have found myself working in an observatory, studying stars, planets and galaxies as a vocation rather than a hobby.
Over the last 20 years I've noticed, sadly, how much more difficult it has become to see the night sky from my home in the Midwest, due to several factors including climate change (far more clouds nowadays, where I live) and city lights.
The idea of globally accessible internet from the skies seems like a noble one, but definitely needs to be taken in context with the realities of corporate profiteering, and its affects on scientific study of the universe beyond Earth. Thousands of scientists around the world depend on being able to conduct their studies in darkness, while millions of ordinary people like myself depend on being able to share in the fruits of that labor of discovery.
If regulation is the only way to make sure astronomers get a fair shake in this matter, then so be it. I for one am not willing to sacrifice the future of ground-based astronomy (MOST of the science) for internet access that could be achieved via other means.
8
How practical is to deploy what appears to be an incredible and unending number of satellites. As with anything that turns out to be be too much of a good thing, it appears that we’re in the middle of what will become an orbiting mess. China, Russia, India, the EU and others can exacerbate a crowded situation. Information transmission satellite technology should be improved to make the most of it with less actual orbiting satellites.
But shouldn't we just trust the invisible hand of free market economy to protect us? I'm sure that, plus the genius of our low-taxed super-duper rich, will do a fine job of protecting our access to all the things that really matter.
10
"...His preliminary results suggest that avoiding the satellites would be difficult during twilight — a serious problem given that potentially hazardous asteroids and many objects in the solar system are best seen during this time. The satellites thus limit the ability of astronomers to observe them."
The "potentially hazardous asteroids" part should concern YOU.
We need a capability to detect and deflect asteroids that could destroy a city, our civilization, or our species, depending on their size.
Right now we can find most of these, but we have no present capability to deflect any. Any attempt at deflection would require a long lead time to carry out.
Giving up the ability to see an asteroid threat, in exchange for more global internet saturation, is a bad idea.
Consider what happened to the dinosaurs.
1
Years go I got to see the night sky sitting on the rim of the Grand Canyon on a moonless night. The sky was so full of stars there wasn't a spot in the sky that didn't have a star.
Before industrialization and electricity, it was what everyone around the world saw on any clear night. It is very sad that most humans don't see the night sky like this anymore. The loss is immeasurable.
43
This will barely affect telescopes worldwide. The real problem is light pollution, which has been affecting cities for over a century and blocks most people from seeing many stars.
3
Just add it to the list of the things billionaires don't care about. When asked to weigh the irreparable harm they will cause to scientific exploration against lining their shareholders' pockets, the plutocrats could make the decision in their sleep. They don't care about you and me, or about the scientific community.
15
I've said this before. I could see Andromeda and the Milky way from my home near San Diego. Now I can count the visible stars. I have a small telescope and giant binoculars that sit in a closet, a 4' refractor and 20X80 binocs.
I remember taking long exposures of the night skies in June in Newfoundland. I looked at my photos and I found this long string of lighted beads. It messed up my images. I wanted a pure image untouched by the hands of men.
1
@SridharC
I hear you, dude.
But it occurs to me that logic dictates that your pure image can only result from just looking up at the sky and not using that made-by-the-hands-of-man camera.
What hasn't the profit motive ruined? The climate is on the brink of making this planet largely uninhabitable for humans. The oceans are warmer, more acidic, and the coral reefs look like they are on the way out. The air is polluted from power plants, industry, and motor vehicles, planes, and ships. The rivers are polluted from industrial waste and agricultural runoff. The land is full of toxic waste sites. The sixth great extinction seems to be underway. Microplastic particles are in everything everywhere, And now it appears outer space surrounding the earth is being polluted with satellites so that future great achievements of astronomy will be himdered. Industrial society is a disaster and now we are just playing out the final decades with no plan for a sustainable world. Next year will be the 50th Earth Day. That should be an ideal time to contemplate this dire situation and look for solutions.
10
Surely there must be a way to reduce the light pollution from these satellites. If black paint won't do it, how about something like black felt? What is needed here is a financial incentive for making these satellites invisible - like a punitive fine for failing to do so.
1
It's not just pollution. Its 24/7/365 radio frequency radiation that he is blanketing the Earth with. Somebody stop this lunatic.
7
@ladyluck the solar system is already giving you a much higher dose of radio, x ray, microwave, and visible frequencies of light. No need for disingenuous fearmongering.
1
Who says we learn from past mistakes? How can it be that an oligarch can simply launch 30,000 satellites (and more on the way) with virtually no government oversight by the U.S. or the U.N. ? This is not just an issue for astronomers, the exploitation of space has significant environmental, social, economic and political consequences for life on earth. We need a process that regulates all commercial space-based development and a legal infrastructure to enforce the decisions.
16
@JKberg The article points out:
"In October, Mr. Musk announced that he was using Twitter via a Starlink internet connection, as his company was requesting permission from the Federal Communications Commission to operate as many as 30,000 satellites on top of the 12,000 already approved."
Speak to your elected officials and tell them you are against these satellites as the US Government is the one responsible for providing oversight.
6
@JKberg
The International Telecommunication Union, a United Nations agency, is the "oversight" agency in charge.
"SpaceX has asked the International Telecommunication Union to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites"
https://spacenews.com/spacex-submits-paperwork-for-30000-more-starlink-satellites/
I wish that this article had discussed the benefits (if any) of this project. There is no mention of that, which makes it hard to analyze the issue. Some commentators have supplied their view of its benefits, but that content should have been in the article, in a reportorial style. At the very least, there should have been a link to that information.
4
Too many satellites in space and pretty soon drones all over the skies delivering packages here and there. No longer deep dark nights or blue skies and butterflies to watch and enjoy. What are we thinking?
1
@Gael
I hear you, dude.
But haven't you heard of the Butterfly Effect? It's all their fault.
All of these proposed constellations will cost USD5-10 billion to launch - significantly more for the full proposed Starlink constellation. Any pretense of altruism should be seen through quickly.
While this system will provide global coverage, the antennas needed to track these satellites from the ground are currently very expensive, and certainly out of reach for disadvantaged communities. And even if the antennas were free, Musk has publicly stated his intention to use SpaceX revenues to fund a manned mission to Mars. Funding a Mars mission, and recouping the initial deployment costs, won't happen by focusing on service delivery to India and Sub-Saharan Africa.
There's already a predecessor for this: O3B, which originally meant the 'Other 3 Billion', and is now jokingly referred to as 'Only 3 Billionaires'. This is purely a question of the priority of capitalism vs. scientific inquiry.
Light pollution is highly regulated and controlled in Arizona due to the well established astronomical community and industry there, however, these legal controls apply only to land-based sources of light pollution. I imagine similar legal constraints on land-based sources of light pollution exist in other locales around the world where astronomical research is a significant part of the economy.
Outside of the professional astronomical community, the ability and need for humans to experience and connect with the night sky and the universe beyond is as old as the human species itself.
Therefore, given this relatively new and rapidly developing threat of orbiting light pollution in the sky, whose disastrous impacts will be universally felt across the globe in contrast to localized land-based sources, new federal and international legal agreements will need to be rapidly developed and cemented in place, perhaps with assistance from organizations such as the International Dark Sky Association, in order to protect our human right to connect and experience the elemental wonders of naturally dark night skies.
201
@Nick If properly done, there will be very little impact on humans experiencing the night sky. Other than brief moments shortly after launch, you'll be unable to see them.
The impact on ground-based astronomy, however, is potentially devastating.
4
@Nick >protect our human right to connect and experience the elemental wonders of naturally dark night skies.
Experience without mind is a very important similarity between Leftism and Nazism. There are similar effects.
Elon Musk is a tragic example of what happens when we try to use technology to solve political problems. Why do we need space-based Internet? Because land-based Internet is expensive, intermittent, unequal, and subject to censorship. If we actually solved the land-based political problem, we wouldn’t need his Starlink system.
304
@Walt Bruckner Why do you say land-based internet is a political problem? It's obviously an economic one just as you described it, and there's no economic reason why internet companies should provide full coverage for Africa, India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, etc. Starlink (or one like it) is the only feasible solution to true internet equality which, in this world, means economic equality.
25
@Walt Bruckner Trust me - Elon's Internet will also be expensive, intermittent, unequal and subject to censorship. Just because it is transmitted across space links doesn't make it any different.
p.s. We already have internet from space. I know because I built the payload. One such system is marketed under the HughesNet banner. One Web is currently testing their system. All are "for pay" systems as will be Starlink.
109
Ken, economic activity is always subject to political regulation. For example, slavery makes economic sense, but is outlawed by our political system. The reasons that make Internet service unprofitable — whatever that means — in certain areas is a result of laws that make it so. That’s the definition of politics.
8
8 x the number of satellites in LEO so 8 x the probability that one of these little guys puts a big hole in some other, much more vital mission or satellite.
Elon Musk is becoming rich off of contaminating Earth's orbital space with space junk.
8
@Chris Yoder
A spacecraft moving into a medium or high earth orbit passes through LEO "space" at significant
radial (or nearly so) speeds - those avoidance systems are not equipped to handle that sort of speed.
2
Well we have polluted earth so lets fill space with garbage too.
1
What’s the shelf life of these? What happens when they’re obsolete?
2
Wow. Apparently, destroying thousands of species and our own habitat wasn't enough for humanity. Now we're destroying the night sky with fake stars--and those fake stars will still be there, destroying our view of the night sky, after civilization collapses (something likely to happen within the next couple of centuries). All for the sake of the kind of people who think Internet access is more important than astronomy.
7
It is now complete ! Humans have managed to pollute just about every inch of this Earth including Mount Everest and now our skies as well ; more falling space junk to imperil the lives of all living things on Earth . This in the name of progress and greed . Elon Musk has proved to be the same as the rest of the greedy polluters .
6
These satellites can be made invisible, or nearly so. See the article "Ultra-black is the new black" in today's science section.
Make the use of this technology legally required on future satellite launches.
2
Even if the satellites are black — reflecting no light — they’re still a problem, as they block the objects behind them. Even for long-integration-time imaging this is a problem, as the measurement of the apparent brightness of an object is a function of integration time (among other things), and it assumes a constant view of the object. If you pass a black satellite in front of the object, and you don’t know how long it’s there, you’ve corrupted your measurement.
Billionaires think they own the Earth. Why not the sky, too?
11
Will we one day see a Chief Iron Eyes Cody 'Stop Pollution' broadcast message lamenting the junk we have launched into outer space?
1
“It kind of boils down to: How much do I trust corporate good will, and how much would a corporation care about the opinion of people who care about science and astronomy?”
Hmmmm... how have we done with that line of thinking in the past?
Let's look at the history of corporate "good will" in regards to the deteriorating quality of our food supply, climate change, for-profit medicine... Seriously, can we not learn from the past? Can we please stop Elon Musk? Are we really going to let the future depend on his moral compass or lack thereof?
7
I'm less concerned with these 60 satellites than with the thousands scheduled to follow them over the next few years, according to the FCC filing. Bringing internet to those who currently lack access will ultimately be a good thing--at least to the extent the internet is ever a good thing--and I'm glad Starlink is happening, but they need to get the albedo down to the point where these are 18th magnitude or dimmer.
SpaceX has some outstanding engineers. They need to slow down and fix this problem before plowing ahead.
4
I believe the long term advantages of global internet is greater than terrestrial based astronomy. There are literally billions of brains that don't have the full amplification of the knowledge from the Internet. The return on investment in this area of mental amplification is likely to be far greater than any contributions of increasingly antiquated terrestrial astronomy-- terrestrial astronomy that will eventually be replaced by space based astronomy, the only question is when not if.
All those cheap shared launch carriers provides the opportunity for very long base line observations using multiple satellites, with eventually lunar observatories. Cheap launch capability is a huge asset, use it.
What did we expect to happen as we expand into space? The crowding of the sky is only a matter of time but the technological gains we achieve by pushing out should also make it easier to launch and operate space telescopes. Hopefully some day we’ll even be able to colonize or terraform other planets. Longer term this push into space is a good thing even if it causes some headaches for astronomers in the meantime.
Mr. Musk is the definition of hubris. What could possibly go wrong? I mean, whenever we've made a decision based on, "We can do it, so why not?" it's always worked out fabulously well, hasn't it? Especially for the "have nots" - the poor, the disenfranchised, the disempowered. Carry on Mr. Musk! Your ego is our lodestar.
7
If there were more advanced life in the Universe, and if it did ever come within traveling distance of Earth, they’d take one look at our cosmic garbage dump and keep on truckin’.
“It kind of boils down to: How much do I trust corporate good will, and how much would a corporation care about the opinion of people who care about science and astronomy?”
This is a joke, right? I laughed.
7
it seems to me that the only answer is
that when we finally get a colony of human beings on Mars
(as Bas Lansdorp and his Mars-One project is trying to do)
that we set up an astronomical observatory there
where the "seeing" will be better than that of earth's
smaller telescopes on Mars will out-perform
their larger earth-bound counterparts
and astronomy can move forward at a faster pace
As long as SpaceX’s satellites are invisible to the naked eye, who cares.
SpaceX is developing Starship, a giant rocket that can launch telescopes to the far side of the moon where they can make better observations without atmospheric or radio interference. Elon should simply offer such launches at-cost.
If this will put an end to the tyranny of Comcast, Musk would have saved humanity from intellectual extinction.
6
@Educator - Hear, hear! Its not like I can see anything up in the night sky, anyway.
And so it goes, another billionaire tries to take another piece of America. I feel like we’re an abandoned car getting stripped by thieves.
3
Because ruining land and sea and air isn't enough.
44
What happens when these things fall out of orbit and plummet to earth. What if they kill somebody? Who will be responsible?
@MHW
Well I guess it is safer than working in a Tesla plant.
Typical of an arrogant engineer who is more interested in his toys and money than any impact on the rest of the world.
Hubris, I think, covers it all.
4
Elon, Elon, Elon, put down the kush. This idea stinks. Stick with your hole in the ground. We can't see that. Or is that the problem?
Does anyone not want permanent internet access foisted on them wherever they go? What if I don’t want to be connected to the rest of humanity in this corporate and state controlled information system? Don’t I have a choice? It is now literally impossible to escape, there is no place on planet earth one can go to to get away. What gives them Elon Musk the right to do this? He doesn’t own the earth. The arrogance is unbelievable.
37
@Dannyritz
Thank you, very important point.
First the birds going under, now the stars. I find this terribly sad news.
2
More unregulated capitalism. Disrupting astronomy. Not good.
We need a progressive administration to begin to restore regulations that promote the public well being-not the billionaire class.
20
@Bob Dass The fact that you don't see cheap internet for the millions of people in less-developed nation as a good thing is alarming.
There's an old joke. What is the definition of a preservationists? The person who just bought their house in the woods and doesn't want a neighbor.
The US, Europe and Asia have functional internet, but many parts of South America and Africa don't. Prioritizing the luxury of astronomy over the economic development of millions is wrong.
Space-based astronomy will be much more effective anyway (see Hubble Telescope).
The tragedy of the commons written across the firmament. I am glad to have known the sky before there were any satellites. I will treasure those memories.
24
The concerns of astronomers are important but are overshadowed by the health effects of the 5G space system on life on earth, and the way they may portend the end of life on planet earth by the disruption of the earth's magnetic field. I love astronomy, too, but I also think the preservation of life on earth is
worth a thought or two prior to deployment of these lethal satellites.
3
Why anyone wouldn't see the obvious downside to this project and stop it in it's tracks is totally beyond me. It's time for congress to enact legislation that puts and end to this activity.
16
I would image that adding 10,000's of satellites will make near earth asteroid detection more difficult. We may miss identifying and responding quick enough to an incoming asteroid on collision course to Earth as there will be too many moving lights in the sky to sort through from monitoring telescope data. Therefore, besides an eyesore of the sky, excessive number of satellites may be hazardous to life on Earth...
12
It seems like there is a simple solution:
Tax them to pay for orbital observers that are further out. Tax them for the added time needed for engineers to avoid the increasing danger of orbital strikes.
As long as private companies pay for the damage that they do in aid of the common good am okay....but they will fight tooth and claw to avoid it, just like the coal industry does to this day.
11
It would seem that the most significant problem would be that we couldn’t keep track of dangerous asteroids. Of course, what could we do about an asteroid impact anyway? Most likely, we don’t even know right now what the unintended consequences of this clutter will be. It seems to me that one danger is that we become overly reliant on fragile objects orbiting in space. What happens if something knocks these things out after civilization becomes dependent upon that? It’s already a problem and I guess it will get much worse.
1
I can fully relate to the concerns of the astronomers. I remember how nice it was to see the horse drawn carriages and stage coaches trot by my front drive. How quiet it was. Now, it is cars and trucks.
Please, astronomers. Deal with it. Besides, I have yet to see how my life (or theirs) has benefited from knowing how many light years Star "X" is from Earth.
1
Elon Musk is a visionary, a leader and human.
Teslas are great, but many electric cars are ultimately fueled, at least in-part, by fossil fuels.
And what about the environmental costs of making & ultimately disposing the batteries?
Internet in the sky??
Sure!
Why not?
We’ve only about a century of civilization left (with insect decline threatening food web & phytoplankton decline limiting oxygen supply), so we might as well go out with a bang.
3
I just want Internet access. I live in Los Angeles County and literally, my Internet is worse than it is in the Amazon!! But, it seems to me, they should be able to easily fix the light pollution problem on future launches.
2
Doesn't the private sector always improve things when it's allowed to operate without limits?
19
I hope this was satirical
1
Not according to Adam Smith, whose “Wealth of Nations” is often mis-cited as a laissez-faire manifesto.
He argued that freeing the economy from its straitjacket of mercantilism would benefit society, that we also need government to protect the general welfare from those whose main concern is profit. Here’s one of many representative quotes:
“[The interest of] any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers . . . and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens. The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”
He also supported taxation for public goods: “The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
1
@Mike McGuire
"Doesn't the private sector always improve things when it's allowed to operate without limits?"
Yes, the private sector will strive to improve when allowed to operate without limits. But what are they improving? Corporations will always strive to improve profits when limits are not imposed.
That leaves societal factors to suffer. Unions were created partially in response to abuse of workers. Sure, overworking and underpaying because of no limits certainly helped improve profits. Environmental laws were enacted in response to massive pollution caused by manufacturing. Sure, not having to control pollution contributed to improving the bottom line.
Improving which things is always important to define. It's hard to later impose limits once the private sector is initially allowed unfettered access to do what they deem important to "improve."
2
Remember when Pizza Hut wanted to put their logo on the moon? Corporate interests are as boundless as space. Strong treaties will be important to ensure that we have equitable access to both explore and commercialize space in a way that ensures a multitude of interests are accounted for. I would suggest band gaps be instituted for different sectors so that astronomers can have periods of undisturbed access, followed by access to Starlink and other satellite communication systems. This would make it altogether easier for astronomers to time their observations of the night sky too, saving time on deploying complex models. If the sky goes unregulated we risk impairing our science exploration of space and that would be a tragedy not just for human exploration, but also for future companies that want to endeavor in off-plant ventures.
8
It's about time we had planetary broadband.. think of the potential for people to live and work from remote locations. Lots of people will be able to live outside the city and enjoy a higher quality of life ('m personally counting the days). I'm sorry about the impacts on astronomy, but it's high time we became a space based civilization where space telescopes would make this question irrelevant!
69
@Alexander
Space-based telescopes are incredibly expensive and difficult to operate. On the other hand, Earth-based telescopes are much, much cheaper can easily be repurposed for new projects by adding new kinds of equipment to them. Doing that in space requires a vehicle like the space shuttle and risking the lives of astronauts. It’s just not cost effective and years of planning would be required for each new telescope upgrade. Being forced to rely only on space based telescopes would be terrible for astronomy. Only wealthy countries would be able to make observations, the kinds of observations would seriously limited, and only a few research groups would be able to get coveted telescope time.
87
@E I sympathize, but am ummoved. I believe the benefits are too great to humanity even if it ground all astronomy to a halt.
We need space telescopes and possibly lunar telescopes. They will be unaffected by this, and also have the advantage of being vastly more effective than terrestrial telescopes clogged by an atmosphere. Yes, it is expensive at the moment, but if humanity gets its act together that will not be the case for long. As far as astronauts dying, yes it will continue to happen, but we need to get into space and develop lunar facilities that will make a lot of fundamental science possible and cheaper, deaths or not. The more we do it, the less risky it will get.
16
@Alexander Yes, I also agree that it is much more important to be able to stream entertainment everywhere than to try and understand the universe. I mean, that is the attitude already so why stop now?
182
I haven't been able to see more than a dozen stars since I moved out of rural Alabama. While I appreciate the concerns of astronomers, the real loss has been here for decades - most citizens never experience a night sky in its true glory.
219
@Ken The loss of the night sky in cities is a huge loss, but that loss is cosmetic and you can still find beautiful night skies (such as in rural Alabama).
The loss described in this article is much more serious. Astronomy studies the fundamental laws of the universe and seeks to answer questions that humans have been asking for thousands of years.
Further, I fail to see why losing a beautiful night sky means we can be flippant about losing astronomy. Losing one doesn't necessitate losing the other; it makes it even more important to preserve astronomy.
You can still go to rural Alabama to view the stars; astronomers might not be able to do their work no matter where they are.
27
@Chris Mcdonough If there were no space telescopes, I might agree. But visionaries like Musk will give us massive telescopes on the dark side of the moon which no earth telescope could dream of matching. Stay tuned, the future is here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_telescopes
2
@Ken It's not about the cosmetics or entertainment of people's celestial viewing pleasure. The science of astronomy is important to our lives here on earth. Now, in typical greed fashion, Musk wants to intrude on nature and impose his technology on outer space. We are already making this planet uninhabitable. Before we know it, the same will be true of space. And if there are other intelligent beings out there, I am sure this is not making them happy. They may not want to spend all their time on computers and tv. It will never be enough to have 30.000 satelites. There is never and end to greed.
3
I’m an astrophysicist, and I think that we need strong regulations to deal with this issue now. Astronomy is fundamentally an observational science — detailed observations are needed both to make new discoveries and to test our theories. Most observations are made by ground-based telescopes and many of those telescopes will be affected by Starlink and its heirs. If companies like SpaceX continue launching these satellites, we may not be able to answer certain fundamental questions about the universe. Instead of looking with wonder out into our beautiful universe, we’d look with sadness into the shiny mirrors of corporate profit.
507
@E This article is concern trolling, and it succeeded in distracting scientists from the key issue of our times-politics based on science and the public benefit vs politics based on private gain.
No Republican administration or Senator gives a hoot about science or the public benefit. Splitting our energy on weighing benefits of specific policies or issues pulls energy away from the fundamental reality of our time: class warfare is real, and the billionaires have won for the last 10,000 years, except for 1776-1850 and 1932-1968.
We have a chance to change that in 2020, and with GOP policies of Gerrymandering and voting machine fraud, it may be the last opportunity for 100 years. Don't waste your energy on individual issues.
Look at the big picture. Science is important. Public policy is important. A government dedicated to public benefit, not private benefit, is critical. Don't get distracted by policy details. The GOP wants to cripple science in the public interest, and grab all its benefits for their rich donors and themselves. Don't get distracted. Who favors crippling science, and who favors the public interest?
Look at the big picture.
33
This is broadly true but a but unfair to E. It comes off as more than a little preachy to tell an astrophysicist not to "worry about individual issues" when this particular issue could cripple their life's work. Everyone should be politically aware and involved but that doesn't mean forsaking your profession and passion. We need people like E to explain why this issue matters and the long term effects it will have.
I also don't understand how this is "concern trolling". Placing 15,000 to 45,000 satellites in orbit is a real issue with real consequences. Not to say that social issues aren't real and don't have direct impacts on people, they do. However, filling the sky with objects is a physical reality that will impact humanity's ability to learn about the universe for the foreseeable future.
67
@Josh Thank you so much, I really appreciate your comment.
I think that @DataDrivenFP is making some big assumptions about who I am and what I care about that just aren’t true. Just because I deeply care about the future of my field does not mean that I’m not also deeply concerned about situation in the US (and world) today. I’m doing my best, as a citizen, to combat those trends by campaigning for my Democratic candidate of my choice, and participating in Union of Concerned Scientist campaigns to bring more attention to the issues of climate change, agricultural policy, and nuclear weapons. To say that I am not paying attention to the “big picture” is deeply wrong and, honestly, hurtful.
52
As a budding amateur astronomer, I and my astronomy club put on youth outreach events just about every week in our effort to encourage youth interest in astronomy and science.
The main volunteers and officers of our club put a _lot_ of weekly volunteer time into this work.
Now we will have to contend with even more light pollution - and worse "star pollution".
Thanks Mr. Musk for your arrogance and tunnel vision.
52
Seeing the night sky full of night stars, looking at like a shepherd would have a the time of the birth of Jesus Christ, is one of the most thrilling experiences a human can have. And now city people cannot even recognize Ursus Major if they could see it nor even know how to find the direction north by looking a the Polar star.
8
@Svirchev Don't worry in another 50 years people will be living in caves and everything will be dark. It will just be another extinct civilization like the Inca's or Pompey. I hope my children will still see the light.
@Svirchev True, but then we'd use maps, GPS or even a compass, all stuff Jesus and his time had little experience with, not even knowing most of Earth's lands existed.
I'm pretty sure that greed for profit will ruin space, too. Like we did with our planet.
121
These satellites are not permanent. Their orbits will eventually decay n they will burn up in the atmosphere.
If their negatives outweigh the positive we can ban them.
So lets not flipout just yet.
On the other hand this might be an evil plot by SPECTRE ... Paging 007
3
Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
- Article II, Outer Space Treaty
This is appropriation by other means. Not only will we not be able to see past 30,000 satellites in low earth orbit, it will become increasingly difficult to punch a hole through to go anywhere else in the universe.
11
Well, we've filled the ocean with plastic trash (we won't talk about the land). It sounds like a typically-human act to fill outer space with trash, too. Those satellites have a service lifetime, after all, and they're not all going to deorbit. Of course, there's already a lot of junk going around up there, so what's a bit more?
I shudder to think what future generations are going to do to the moon or the planets.
9
This isn’t correct, the satellites passively deorbit when ground controllers lose contact, being destroyed in the atmosphere within a few months. No permanent space junk is created.
2
@S. Larson That sounds a great deal like "Of course I'l love you in the morning." I think there might be more to the story....
1
@S. Larson
Just curious...what sort of pollution, VOCs, toxins are created as these little buggers burn up on re-entry?
This is great, if for only one reason, since the new company is setting up an internet from space, EVERYONE will have access.
The Sky-Fi company will only charge $7.00 a month, and it will destroy the evil ATT, etc. companies that have been ripping us all off for years.
So we get to have a good company for everyone, cheep.
Smash the greedy selfish tech monsters. Let everyone participate.
3
Not get to see stars...put Comcast out of business. Hmmm...
7
@gayle morrow I like that idea very much!
@gayle morrow Comcast will be replaced by another Comcast. Where there is profit to be made altruism takes a back seat. Elon Musk appears to have a god complex and it needs to be fed. Speaking of billionaires.....
1
Man is slowly but surely degrading the earth. Not much we can do about it. What a shame for our decedents.
3
The same robber barons who polluted the planet are now at it again, only in space.
Protecting and preserving nature is never a priority for them. Only profit. And if that means destroying the night sky for all of humanity. So be it.
12
Worry astronomers? It should worry us all. Space is the common property of all. Putting up one satellite, or a handful, okay, you don't need to pay rent. But putting up 30000 is a different order of magnitude. Mr. Musk and his company should be paying rent big time. Yet again these Silicon Valley geeks are making money by monetizing the use of common or hitherto free goods. It's shameful, and Mr. Musk is shameless.
85
@Quelqu'un ... No, space is not "the common property of us all." It does not belong to us whatsoever.
4
Tax these satellites to fund new orbital observatories if they are going to make ground-based observations impossible. That is a fair impact fee.
9
Anyone who can toss a 1,305 kg (2,877 lb) vehicle into space needs to be closely monitored.
33
Musk put a car into orbit with an astronaut sitting behind the wheel as a PR stunt.
He doesn’t care about space junk.
17
@Bryan
In that regard, America’s ‘moonlanders’ and already staggering amount of satellites for either public good, private use, military use, TV transmission Satellites, Spy missions have started this creation of Space debris.
Stars have become invisible in almost each and every bigger city.
Only from Oceans one can still have, on a clear day, an unobstructed view of Space. Astronomers might have to think ahead as light pollution has been happening for a very long time, they might have to start thinking out of the box instead of complaining about light pollution. For mankind to survive, light pollution will only increase, mankind cannot survive in the dark.
@Bryan To be fair to Mr. Musk, the orbit of the Tesla is heliocentric. It's a long elliptical orbit which at apogee is out beyond the Mars orbit and at perigee grazes earth orbit. But it is not orbiting earth, and when I say "grazes earth orbit" that does not mean that the earth will be there when the Tesla comes that close. To put the matter another way, if every piece of space junk had an orbit like this it would not be much of a problem, as the orbit is far away from the low altitude orbits of most space junk.
the obvious solution is to view the universe outside any satellite orbit .. pricey but the way
Mr. Musk should have been censored after that stupid stunt with the car and fake driver were launched into space. Still circling and embarrassing the human race for how many centuries? Just because he has all the money in the world, and the ego of a 13-year-old, why is he allowed to ruin so much for so many?
49
Ah space........Mankind's cowardly escape from the horrors he is doing to the Earth.
Guess what though? Mankind will not prevail and all the cute little science and technology projects will be washed away maybe quickly or slowly. Cowardly mankind's dominion over the Earth is a real joke.
5
high time to build a giant reflector on the dark side of the moon.
@d4961 and let Bezos and Musk pay for it!
1
Gee. Couldn't they just have made them flat black?
It's not that Musk is anti-astronomy. They just didn't think of it.
It's not Rocket Science. ; )
1
Vanta Black! Anish Kapoor should step up and let all the satellites be painted Vanta Black...
1
It's the end of astronomy. Cut-off light fixtures offered some hope. But it's clear that the days when you can take a telescope out to the countryside and look at a galaxy or open cluster are numbered.
I had a 4.25 inch f/10 Newtonian on a cast iron mount back in the sixties, and vividly remember tracking an Echo satellite by hand across the sky, around 1965. Seeing a satellite was like seeing a plane circa 1920.
Now I have an array of much better telescopes. I see several satellites an hour and try to ignore them. Astro-imagers have to throw out frames that are ruined by satellites. It looks like frequency of visual detection (with a telescope) will go up to dozens of satellites a minute. It is awful.
18
Why is no one talking about the possible effects of beaming 5G from 20,000 satellites from space. The health effects have not been adequately studied. Thousands and thousands of doctors and scientists have called for a moratorium until real studies, not by the telecom companies, have been produced showing the effects on humans, animal life, and possibly even the upper atmosphere.
24
@TF You know those studies are expensive and time consuming. As they do in the 3rd world now, it is better to test on unsuspecting human subjects and now they have the whole world in their petri dish! We get to pay for it too!
1
@TF
The physics just isn't there. I know radiation is a scary word, but there isn't a physiological interaction that even proponents of an assumed danger have even suggested, let alone identified.
2
@TF When the satellites eventually fall back to earth and burn up, are they polluting the atmosphere?
The oceans filled with plastic, forests with smoke, the atmosphere with carbon, but outer space - the greatest prospect of all, where the human eye can almost glimpse infinity - surely that is safe from ruination.
Enter Mr. Musk and his 30,000 crawling stars.
And to what purpose? The article doesn't make it clear. So we can do something online a bit faster than we already do it? This is absurd. The US government in the form of the FCC has the authority to stop this.
97
@colombus Mr. Musk's claimed purpose is to fund the colonization efforts of Mars, so that humanity is not at risk of sudden extinction events. It also breaks the monopolies of ISP providers in rural America, as well as deliver broadband internet to remote or developing areas.
This article focuses on the criticisms the astronomy community has on the issue, without offering explanations and opportunities for this. Will astronomy suffer? Unfortunately yes, but it's a small sacrifice for global progress.
3
@Connor agreed!
1
@Connor
So Elon Musk does not intend to make massive profits from this. It's a humanitarian effort.
I have a bridge I'd like to sell you in Brooklyn.
11
And the electric car is a threat to internal combustion engine automobile. It's seems like every time that Elon Musk pushes the technological envelope, his critics whine and cry about some existing 20th century technology.
Besides, there's no way of regulating this activity other than a treaty and given today's political climate, that's not going to happen.
Problem is, the older “technology” being threatened here is the sky.
8
The criticisms are valid. I recall in the 1990s, lying on a friend's country house porch, watching the night sky. And this one little dot of light, very very slowly moving across the sky.
I said oh thats a plane.
She said no thats a satellite. It will come around again across the sky, in a couple of minutes.
Sure enough, that same little dot came around again in a few minutes.
Now multiply that, by at the very least, hundreds.
And argue with astronomers that their alarms are not valid.
76
You're memory must be faulty. No satellite orbits the earth in just a few minutes.
20
@Kevinizon It may have been a satellite but if it was it was a series of satellites in the same orbit or close to it. A satellite does not go round the earth "in a few minutes."
21
@margaret_h & @Sneeral
Depending where the porch Kevinizon was lying on is located and how long "a couple of minutes" are, it could very well have been the same satellite, if said satellite is on a "inclined geosynchronous orbit", meaning it will fly an analemma or 8-shaped path around one stationary point on the equator and can therefore be seen multiple times a night, crossing the same path in a relative short time period.
Btw: most satellites don't "fly around the earth", they more or less stand still on one point relative to earths equator (-> geosynchronous orbit). If that wouldn't be the case, all satellite dishes that don't rotate would be basically useless...
5
I see this as a typical Musk-Project: the positive side has been blown up and no negative points are shown.
I still see several "challenges". I do believe them when they say that the download will be fabulous, but you will still need a ground station for the upload, which means that you still need the actual landlines. It will be internet for everybody who can afford a sat receiver and a has a ground-station-connection.
I have Sat television, and therefore I know that you can forget sat-connections each time you have rain or thunderstorms.
16
@Dirk D The altitude at which Starlink operates makes it completely unlike any satellite internet solution with which you may be familiar. Typical comms satellites operate at geosynchronous orbit (~38,500 km altitude); starlink operates at ~550 km altitude (this has changed slightly a few times, so not sure of what it is exactly now).
Not only will you not need a ground station for upload, but Starlink should actually beat fiber optic on latency, with the advantage going up the further the distance, given that the speed of light is faster in vacuum than fiber optic.
This isn't your grandpa's satellite internet.
8
@Alexander Correction to my previous post-- geosynchronous orbit is ~35,800 km, not ~38,500 km.
1
@Alexander
You seem to forget that "the internet" is not in space, it is on the servers/computers on earth. You still need grandpa's ground-stations to get the data up there! You should explain us how a laptop/PC/Tablet will send the upload data to starlink without some kind of ground station.
6
Why stop there? Coke, Pepsi or Amazon could make huge space based billboards. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should without first evaluating the effects.
127
I was once in a long argument with my brother, who annoyed with captions in a film at a visitors center at a national monument, demanded that "retinal imaging" be employed so as not to distract the non-hearing impaired.
Like Musk, his view of technology as a be-all-end-all solution was annoying then, and is more and more troubling now.
Note: I work in technology.
35
Remember WALL-E with the rocket traveling through a cacophony of company satellites. that will be our new future unless we act now.
92