At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful.
In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me at all, and I could never find an argument in support of this ‘fact’.
You acknowledge the existence of things blocking <something>, and can't imagine that there are people who want to see <something>?
I feel like when <something> is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragmatically?
The following types of people might feel strongly about this for some reason or another- I feel like steelmaning hypothetical opinions they might have is a really enriching thing to do.
- Photographers / enthusiasts
- Astronomers / enthusiasts
- Those who enjoy nature
I personally have a mixed opinion, probably leaning towards alignment with the above groups, but I can also steelman the thought processes of those who'd think this is cool or fascinating (because of course, it is!)
I'm not trying to convince you of something about the post subject here; The rhetorical questions above are not intended to be read as "how don't you understand this and agree with me", but instead "how/why did these potential viewpoints not find you?" The lack of mention of any other viewpoint comes off as almost poor-faith or naivete.
In the SWE community, people place a lot of emphasis on attempting to find solutions to a problem yourself first, before asking a question (and detailing what you've tried/explored already) to a community. With that mentality, it irks me when I see comments that don't seem to apply the same rigor to rhetorical discussions.
At the risk of being overtly snarky, could you really not conjure anyone that might have an opposing viewpoint?
And fwiw, I also think the image is really cool. It's insane the world we've built, and imagining the context of all the math, physics, and human power of will that are behind those streaks of light is awesome.
But a negative viewpoint can't be that hard to see, right?
Sorry, but the ship has sailed. Fix your problems in software maybe.
> - Astronomers / enthusiasts
Every Starship launch should offer ride-share for a space based observatory. Astronomy will only improve with space based telescopes. Yes, spacecraft are expensive but so are Earth based observatories, but how does it look with launch cost removed from the equation?
> - Those who enjoy nature
Generally can't see the satellites with the naked eye. Should probably concentrate on not walking into a hole / body of water / off a steep precipice.
This complaint about the aesthetics of the night sky is the wimpy enemy of progress. Imagine bronze / iron age people up in arms because suddenly the sea is full of fishing boats and merchant vessels. Or people up in arms because farmland has spoiled the view of forests.
Yes, I think this stuff looks nice without man-made things. I enjoy the night sky. I also enjoy being able to eat and utilize modern technology. There will come a day when spacecraft coming and going will be as routine as we see airplanes now, so our descendants will have that to complain about next, until it becomes as pointless to complain about as the asphalt roads that have lead to and from or houses.
Space based technology will make life better for all of humanity just like every technology that has come before it. The genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in.
>how does it look with launch cost removed from the equation?
The Webb Space Telescope cost $10 billion, and has a 6.5 meter mirror. With the launch cost removed, it cost $9.5 billion.
The Extremely Large Telescope is located on Earth, costs a little over $1 billion, and has a 39 meter mirror.
The idea of completely replacing ground observatories with orbital ones is so infeasible it's not really worth discussing. If satellite pollution grows so extreme they can no longer function, those capabilities will simply be lost.
"....Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked....."
Light Pollution is the excess or inappropriate artificial light outdoors. Light pollution occurs in three ways: glare, light trespass, and skyglow.
\* Glare is the bright and uncomfortable light shining directly to the observer that interferes with your vision.
\* Light trespass is the unintended spill of artificial light into other people’s property or space and often becomes a source of conflict.
\* Skyglow is the brightening of the night sky from human-caused light scattered in the atmosphere.
Reflected sunlight from a human object spilling light into an environment that would otherwise not have that reflected sunlight is very much in the spirit of light pollution.
Skyglow is when you see the horizon light up in the direction of a city, not the light reflecting from a satellite. Look at the photo in your own link.
Let's assume I've read the link and have had discussions with both visual and radio spectrum astronomers and astrophysicists.
Starlink satellites pollute the night sky with both reflected sunlight and intended and unintended radio spectrum noise.
Manmade objects that inject light into an otherwise dark sky fit the category of skyglow, reflected sunlight tends to be sharper and less diffuse than atmospherically scattered ground lighting .. it's all extraneous human caused pollution from the PoV of telescopes.
I do find the juxtaposition of “look at this image of satellites” and “the image is a composition of 360 photographs” to require a certain leap of logic that hasn’t been established. On the one hand, it shows that a lot of satellites are visible throughout the night. On the other hand it’s harder to understand what the broader implications of this are.
In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me at all, and I could never find an argument in support of this ‘fact’.
Can someone enlighten me here?