Just over 3 years ago, I moved to a farm where I can see the Milky Way from my back door. Despite being an astronomer, I've never had that kind of personal access to a dark sky before, and it totally changed my relationship with the sky.
I have always loved looking at the stars, but now I also feel a shared ownership of this natural resource with all of humanity, past, present, and future. This is my sky! Our sky! Our human history!
(1/n)
I moved here in 2019, just as the night sky started to change thanks to Starlink and other satellite companies scrambling to launch as many satellites as possible as quickly as possible.
The number of satellites in orbit has tripled since I moved here, and now almost exactly half of all satellites in orbit are owned and operated by one American private company: SpaceX's Starlink.
In these past 3 years, I've been been able to watch with my own eyes as more and more satellites appear in my night sky. I actually published a scientific paper on satellite pollution: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac341b
The predictions useful for everybody in the world, but if I'm being honest, my initial motivation was actually to find out how bad it's going to get in my sky. (Turns out I'm at just about the worst latitude in the world for satellite light pollution and re-entry risk. Great.)
Interestingly, while I was travelling over winter break I was mostly in places that are much more light-polluted than where I live. And I really couldn't see the satellites, so I didn't worry about the destruction of the night sky as much about them as usual.
Out of sight, out of mind.
When I got back home to my sky, I could immediately see all the satellites crawling across my sky again, and it was like a punch in the gut. They're still here, they're still bright, and they're still totally changing the night sky for everyone who can see it.
But now I understand why people aren't outraged by our night sky being destroyed for profit: they can't see this change, thanks to the light pollution that the vast majority of us live in.
I guess I'll end with my usual plea: don't buy Starlink internet. Or if you do, please tell them that you, a paying customer, care about the night sky. They need to make it a priority to make their satellites fainter and use fewer of them - this is a very doable engineering problem that they don't care about right now. There are many other ways to provide internet around the world that don't ruin the night sky and destroy low-Earth orbit.
And get yourself out to a dark place to enjoy the sky! Light pollution map here: https://www.cleardarksky.com/maps/lp/large_light_pollution_map.html
If you are out there more than 2 hours after sunset or more than 2 hours before sunrise, almost none of the satellites will be visible, so enjoy that dark time. That's what I'm holding on to.
@sundogplanets Starlink is being used to bring high-speed internet to places often overlooked by Internet Service Providers (rural areas, oceans, war zones & so called “third world” countries).
The number of satellites from Starlink will increase from 3,271 (current) to 42,000 in about 5 years.
👉🏾 https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
I prefer ground cables to satellite internet, but many underserved communities are demanding access & few are providing options.
@darnell Yes, thanks! As a rural internet user, I totally understand how this could be a good thing. But it's also important to keep in mind that they're not giving internet access for free, they are a for-profit company, not a charity, and they will charge lots of money for access.
Plus there shouldn't have to be a choice between internet access and dark skies, this is an engineering problem. They could choose to make the satellites fainter and use fewer if it was a priority for them.
@sundogplanets Yeah, countries & communities are paying for the #Starlink Internet service, with the only exception being #Ukraine 🇺🇦 which is fighting off #Russia 🇷🇺 (but I think Europe is paying for it now).
I wonder if #SpaceX could talk to the United 🇬🇧 about using light-absorbing Vantablack on their satellites‽
Vantablack would make the satellites virtually invisible.
I will never knowingly give that man a single cent of my money.
@sundogplanets it's inevitable and perhaps we should talk about constellations funding space based systems. I mean Oneweb is 648. If [Amazon] Kuiper happens that's 3K. Bluesky has a direct to phone demonstration w/ a 58m2 antenna array and who knows how many. EU is serious about space-based solar which can only mean multiple ISS sized arrays if they're going to get the GW they want.
And to make things worse SpX is at least trying to minimize impact. Not a peep from anyone else.
@sundogplanets There are certainly some parallels, but one really big difference is that carbon emissions tend to come from pretty useful stuff, where it's honestly pretty hard to figure out how to get the job done with less pollution.
In contrast, the US government worked out how to prevent #LightPollution already during WW2, and many low-pollution products exist. They're just not widely used.
@sundogplanets It's another example of "shifting baselines"; if someone hasn't seen something that was once commonplace, they are less likely to accept the veracity of its former existence, and will refer to such things as "old people's tales".
This is something that has become a great problem, because many people can't - won't - understand how much has been lost or taken from our environment; and therefore do not understand why reparations must be made.
Prof. Sam Lawler
Simon Brooke
Rabbi Jill Zimmerman
Poor 'Possum
Sikntyrd54
Andy Daitsman
Pari Moon-Forest
Darnell Clayton 
Aijustice
skry
Tero Keski-Valkama
Stephen Gower
Sensational Gus
Lot⁴⁹
anlomedad
Oh.
Olav
kb
Riley S. Faelan
Jeff
Monte Ward
ex or current IDF unwelcome
Roger KE8LCM
Christopher Kyba
Buy nothing new
Raul Cerveira Lima 🇪🇺
Ronald Drimmel
Jerry
HLGEM
Russ Cheshire
slembcke
Bertwood