gsck 8 hours ago | next |

I wonder if it would be possible for SpaceX to set up something for telescope operators to request a "dark spot", turning off the transmitter for x amount of time at a specific position. I imagine the satellites will have to know roughly where they are in space.

Doesn't prevent the issue of optical telescopes being able to see them, but at least for RF telescopes it should solve that problem

basementcat 2 hours ago | root | parent | next |

There is (was?) some degree of coordination with personnel at the Green Bank Telescope and the VLA related to the Ku beams transmitted down from the satellites. However the newer satellites have higher power transmitters and even the sidelobes may cause undesirable interference.

The interference cited in this article appears to be on a much longer wavelength and is likely due to the larger electronics payloads on each satellite (flight computers, routers, "cloud servers", misc DoD payloads, etc). The cost to mitigate this may be quite expensive, in terms of time, cost and payload mass.

Fundamentally there is a tension between a scientific community that is concerned about interference and a business in which revenue may be correlated with keeping orbiting Ku transmitters powered up as often and as cheaply as possible. This is unfortunate as there is some interesting science that may be observed at these wavelengths.

bendigedig 5 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next |

I wonder if it is possible for starlink as a company to be socially responsible.

snypher 5 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

Not at all - they launch rockets right next to a wildlife habitat, and it's not like they are really that useful, compared to scientific/exploration launches. Yes Starlink internet is 'cool' but is it worth the damage?

s1artibartfast 5 hours ago | root | parent | next |

Thats subjective, but I would say yes. I would happily pave over the entire wetland for a fraction of the value provided by the launch facility.

Given that in reality starbase has negligible tangible impact on the wetland, the whole concern seems overblown to me.

squigz 4 hours ago | root | parent | next |

> I would happily pave over the entire wetland for a fraction of the value provided by the launch facility.

They're not that important anyway. Oh wait.

Teever 5 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

How much environmental destruction would you consider unacceptable for an endeavour like Starship?

How do you justify that amount of environmental destruction by a single organization like SpaceX in context of the tragedy of the commons?

s1artibartfast 2 hours ago | root | parent | next |

How much is an interesting question because it is difficult to quantify - There is no "unit" for ecological destruction. I said above, i think it is worth paving over the entire estuary, which is about 2 square miles.

If I were to put an upper limit on it, it would probably be 100x that.

As for justification, I think that the common value of the local habitat is miniscule, and the common value of SpaceX is immense.

some small number of people use the wild refuge for bird watching and the like, meanwhile SpaceX internet provides millions of people access to education, telemedicine, employment, and/or entertainment. Further development will help advance global Astronomy and encourage space exploration.

phil21 an hour ago | root | parent | prev | next |

Way more useful to humanity than the exploration launches. At least currently in the timeframe of a human life.

It’s been game changing for a few friends and family. Perhaps the science missions may be game changing to their great grandchildren but that’s gonna be a tough sell to many.

inglor_cz 3 hours ago | root | parent | prev |

For me, it absolutely is.

I find the recent religious switch towards worship of nature somewhat disconcerting, even though I like nature in general.

But one particular short stretch of Texan shore vs. space abilities of humanity as a whole doesn't seem a balanced problem to me. Starlink saves Ukrainian lives in battle and can save other lives in distress. It can also make countless human lives more comfortable, and a lot of businesses viable or more profitable. It is not a 'cool toy', it is one of the upcoming communication backbones of the planet, and it even protects some natural lands from being dug up, because it doesn't need laying of long cables across the wild.

I just cannot see how this could be considered as important as convenience of a few sea birds, who, if they are bothered by the launches, can fly a few miles away and be content again. After all, there is abundant wildlife around Cape Canaveral after 60 years of intense space activity - it is not as if rocket launches are a horrible Holocaust of all living things around. Nature adapts to changes. It always had.

bendigedig 3 hours ago | root | parent |

I am just going to leave this here for context:

Wildlife in 'catastrophic decline' due to human destruction, scientists warn - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048

inglor_cz 3 hours ago | root | parent |

Two wrongs don't make a right. You won't help damaged/destroyed nature in some places by banning relatively harmless activities in completely different places. You will only harm net human prosperity.

Spaceflight isn't anywhere close to, say, mining, when it comes to its negative effects on nature, not even 1 per cent as bad. And we still cannot simply ban mining if we want to continue our civilization.

s1artibartfast 5 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next |

That might not even be necessary because the satellites are transient phenomenon with predictable trajectories. This makes it more a matter of data cleaning to remove them.

Imagine someone walking through a log exposure photography shot. You can filter out the frames or pixels with some extra work.

itishappy 5 hours ago | root | parent |

Nit: Lucky imaging requires multiple frames, not long exposures. In short, you need multiple frames to be able to reject any. Long exposure times are still important for astronomy because they improve the noise floor.

s1artibartfast 2 hours ago | root | parent |

long exposure was intended to describe the photography analogy.

Im not an expert in digital radio astronomy, but my understanding is that data is generally sampled at a high rate.

hulitu 3 hours ago | prev | next |

> 2nd-gen Starlink satellites emit 30x more RF interference, blinding telescopes

FCC ?