Just need to scream a little bit about how there are actually hard limits to how much stuff we can have in orbit without severe consequences! It's ok to say that out loud, even if the techbros don't want to hear it!
It's ok (and vitally important) to have in your list of recommendations for satellites operators "Don't launch so many satellites." This is really pretty key to not destroying the night sky, LEO, and/or the atmosphere.
As long as I'm screaming, I hate hate hate that lower altitude orbits has become a standard request from astronomers to satellite operators.
Lower orbits make satellites blur out more for the specific setup of the Vera Rubin Observatory, I do not know if this is true for any other observatories in the world.
Lower orbits make satellites brighter and faster, which is worse for naked-eye stargazers and astrophotographers, and presumably for wildlife though nobody I know has studied that yet.
But the worst misconception is that the Earth's shadow will block more of the satellites at lower altitudes. This is true, but ONLY if you are at latitudes closer to the equator than 40 or so.
If you're closer to the poles (particularly around 50N or S, where I live, and a lot of you in Europe live), the Earth's shadow doesn't help. There's even more naked-eye visible satellites.
@sundogplanets I'm a bit confused here, can I ask a question?
As a person living a 21st century life, the thing that worries me most about the current developments in space isn't problems for astronomy, it's Kessler syndrome. I thought lower orbits help dramatically with that, because despite the much higher crash probabilities the debris will clear within a decade or two, and then we could maybe re-start the space program and be less stupid the second time around.
But if you put enough dead satellites at orbits above 1000 km, we can end up screwed for centuries.
I appreciate your main point that we should simply be more picky about what we launch and why. But arguing for *higher* altitudes given the current "anything goes" launch environment doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Where do you think I'm going wrong in this line of reasoning?
@skyglowberlin I don't see the prof suggesting or advocating for higher orbits in this post.
@skyglowberlin @kellyromanych So. That was a very long way of saying: I'm not advocating for higher altitude orbits. I'm pushing back against this narrative that keeps emerging that lower altitude orbits are better for astronomy.
There's no magic solution with altitude choices. The magic solution is fewer satellites!! But nobody seems to want to say that because it makes the techbros mad. (Oops I said it. Sorry techbros. Well, no not really sorry.)
@sundogplanets @kellyromanych Thanks for the replies Sam.
Losing the use of LEO at any altitude would be (will be?) an absolute disaster for humanity, and would indirectly affect many aspects of our lives. But the consequence of losing the higher parts of LEO would be a dramatic change to our entire civilization for many generations.
The consequence of each "failed" satellite that is part of a constellation is therefore dramatically higher for higher orbits.
I think that the nations that approve launches should be liable for the removal of dead satellites from space (i.e. astronomically massive fines for failure to remove satellites within X years after they are no longer operational). Fat chance of it happening, but it would be an effective way to get the approval boards to take their responsibilities more seriously.
@sidereal @sundogplanets @skyglowberlin The Gen 2 Minis are still dimmer than the Gen 1 satellites, even without the visors and the much larger size. There's also nothing "green" in space.
It's sad how a lot of you can't have polite conversations anymore, immediately jumping to insults and personal attacks the second someone says something you don't like.
@raucao I looked over your feed, and you don't seem like a troll, so I think it's maybe worth responding to this.
You wrote 🤡 in your response to Sam's (correct) statement that the new satellites are brighter when viewed from the Earth's surface (which the linked paper says in the sentence directly after the one you quoted).
I'm an old, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant... But wouldn't you consider the clown emoji to be an insult in that context?
Congratulations on your recent marriage, btw, I hope the day itself was everything you hoped for 🎉
@skyglowberlin Her statement was incorrect in that the Mini is considerably dimmer than the Gen 1, and even dimmer than the latest visor sat, while being much larger in size. The paper also says "partially offset" there, which is reflected in the numbers in the table (some of which are published without source, btw).
In light of that, her reply was not just imprecisely worded (because it's entirely about the lower orbit), but unnecessarily snippy, hence my unfortunate addition of the emoji.
@skyglowberlin So the question is about the lower orbits, which is also what the point of my first reply was (initially that shorter lifespans enable quicker iteration).
You see, her other point was that the increased shadowing doesn't help people North of 40°N. However, the clear majority of people on Earth live below that latitude, so they would indeed benefit from that.
Thus, I think these points are definitely debatable.
Anyway, thanks for the polite reply. I do regret the clown emoji.
@poldemo
I reckon that the first few shots will just bring in Kessler Syndrome and techfashbros will advocate for nuking our orbits.
apparently there is still enough room for space vessels that travel extremely fast carrying alien life forms that are trying to communicate with us tooling around up there with little difficulty dodging space junk....just saying....carry on.
Old enough to remember we dumped raw sewage into our oceans and rivers because it was inconceivable that doing so could have any negative consequences. The oceans were just too big.
@sundogplanets Thanks, Sam, for making some noise about this. It's hard to be so right, but so unheard, about something going so wrong, isn't it? These are the early days of the usual boom/bust/catastrophe cycle that underlies so much of what ails us. If people understood the scale of the problems this satellite surge might create, particularly to atmospheric ozone...
But that's true of so much else.
FYI, here's my take on this story, more literary than technical: https://jasonanthony.substack.com/p/the-sky-is-falling
Prof. Sam Lawler
Christopher Kyba 🇨🇦🇪🇺
KellyAnn Romanych (she/her)
Râu Cao ⚡
sidereal
Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸
SecondUniverse (she/her/they)
poldemo
Dźwiedziu
Scott Miller 🇺🇦 🇺🇸
thermonuclear small claims
the gripe ibis
BenjaminK
@
Mastodon Migration
Jason Anthony