Astronomers Say Starlink, Amazon Light Pollution Keeps Getting Worse
from the first-do-no-harm dept
For years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk’s Starlink low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply put, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but never fully eliminated.
Now with Amazon joining the low Earth orbit satellite race, scientists are increasingly warning that the problem is getting worse, making night sky research more difficult than ever:
“A study published in the journal Nature this week shows that a prototype of AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird swarm has become one of the brightest objects in the heavens. Another study documents how even deliberately darkened satellites are still twice as bright—if not more—than the limit astronomers have called for to minimize effects on space science.”
At a conference last week organized by the International Astronomical Union’s Centre for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference (CPS), scientists noted that even with active efforts to darken and reduce satellite reflections, such satellites are still more than twice as bright as the limit astronomers have recommended to curb such pollution.
Some astronomers have developed systems to track the thousands of LEO satellites being sent into orbit, but those solutions are costly and don’t scale particularly well. Worried that they’ll hamper innovation, regulators had largely been a no-shows on crafting meaningful guidelines; most of what they’ve developed so far has been voluntary.
Then there’s the question of: is this harm to scientific research actually worth it? It’s great to be able to get gigabit broadband on the back of your RV in the middle of nowhere, but capacity constraints and the laws of physics mean that, unlike fiber or even 5G wireless, such systems will always have some notable capacity limitations (Starlink speeds have consistently dropped as capacity shrinks under load).
Starlink currently has 1.5 million global users, when somewhere around 20-30 million Americans lack access to broadband, and another 83 million live under monopoly. Given the high price of service (up to $120 a month and a $600 up front hardware charge) such services also don’t address broadband affordability issues. LEO satellites aren’t truly fixing the underlying problem anytime soon.
Ultimately there’s supposed to be tens of thousands of such smaller satellites peppering the night sky. And while it will ensure you can get a decent broadband signal in the middle of nowhere (if you can afford it and can navigate the year-plus waiting list), there’s a steep scientific cost we’re not doing a particularly good job preparing for.
Filed Under: astronomy, high speed internet, leo, light pollution, satellites, space
Comments on “Astronomers Say Starlink, Amazon Light Pollution Keeps Getting Worse”
See? Capitalism always gets what it wants, at the direct expense of society as a whole.
We didn’t even start dealing with the billboard problem until the mid 1960’s. How long will it take us this time, to figure out that “some people make money from this” isn’t actually a good reason to screw the world up for everybody else?
Yes, there will be a metric sh**load of excuses and PR about how it’s really a good thing, and glorious “progress” that we can’t do without (or even just too convenient to do without) and far too many people will simply, credulously swallow the self-serving schtick, whole… We’re slow learners, when when it comes to messes like this.
“Simply put, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky”
I’m thinking one should not believe a thing Elon has to say.
Re:
“I’m thinking one should not believe a thing Elon has to say.”
You’re rather late on the scene. The whole Twitter scandal taught me that last year.
Thanks to chronic insomnia, I took up ‘satellite spotting’ as a hobby earlier this year. On a good morning, if there’s not too many street lights and trees around, you can see 8-12 satellites with the naked eye in the 90 minutes before dawn.
That doesn’t count the half-dozen or so starlink’s you’ll see at hte same time, which are easy to tell because they’re usually not in the tracking apps (there’s too many of them) and their motion is so much faster while being brighter. most ‘normal’ ones you have to strain to see, starlinks just jump out at you.
They really are a pestilence on our night skies.
People already think they are UFO swarms. The military is already confused by stars and their own flares. And, uh, jet engines, apparently. Just one more reason they are a pain in the ass.
i lurve me some externalized costs.
Metal compound pollutants generated by satellite reentries have now been detected in the Earth’s stratosphere.
https://www.space.com/air-pollution-reentering-space-junk-detected
So what?
Meh.
Light pollution is making the traditional way of doing night sky research more difficult, okay, so what? Just is what this “steep scientific cost” this article is bemoaning about? I just don’t get it. So some bunch of scientists would will lose jobs or grant money or have to change their ways of doing things or their field of inquiry and there is less research about the night sky, is that “steep scientific cost” is about? If so, so what? This does not sound life-changing or a huge negative impact on everyone’ lives to people that are not scientists for people to get excited over.
Just what is the significance of this potential loss of scientific information-gathering to civilization that this lamentation is about? Information for information’s sake is overrated. We are not going to know everything and we don’t need to. Sorry to be blunt here but more communication technology sounds just more useful than some vague night sky research. Sounds more useful than some scientific traditions, at least. Never mind the short-term thinking this article employs about orbital technology, what should really matters is the potential and the long term outlook. Vague loss of some night sky research does not sounds something that could revolutionize our civilization but orbital technology sounds it could eventually.