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.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac341b

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

@sundogplanets It's fun how so much of Europe is north of 50°, but for the southern hemisphere it's only Punta Arenas, Tierra del Fuego, and the southern half of Santa Cruz Province in Argentina.