[mdorazio]

Possibly unpopular opinion: no, I don't think it's worth protecting ground-based astronomy. I could be wrong, but the majority of the important visual/IR astronomical observations from the last decade seem have come from space-based instruments, not ground-based ones. We need to put more instruments in orbit, not worry about fundamentally limited ones on the ground.

Additionally, this seems to me like an overall positive effect for the public at large. Being able to see satellites zooming across the sky is pretty cool, provides educational opportunities beyond what normal stargazing offers, and reminds people that there's something to aspire to (and look forward to) beyond what's on the ground.

[panarky]

The thirty-meter telescope [0] will be ground-based and adjust for atmospheric distortions with adaptive optics.

It will have 144 times the light-collecting area of Hubble. Nice graphic comparing the new generation of extremely large telescopes here: [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Meter_Telescope

[1] https://en.es-static.us/upl/2018/04/comparison-telescope-mir...

[givinguflac]

While obviously we're making more advanced measurements with space-based instruments, the value of the night sky for the average human cannot be overblown. Many people don't know what they're missing, having never lived outside of broad scale light pollution. While I don't think we necessarily need to worry about all ground-based telescopes, I do think that the average person being able to look at the sky and see the stars is something we should never give up on.

[jasonhansel]

I agree with this sentiment 100%. Looking up at the sky and seeing a massive chains of satellites would be a lot like finding piles of trash along a hiking trail.

[vikramkr]

I recall reading about how 5g might interfere with weather forecasting and hurricane tracking, that's the kind of reason that would be compelling to me to stop the satellites (such as if we need ground based telescopes to detect asteroid threats), but unless there is some ground based telescope use case that needs to be ground based and can't be done better with satellite anyway, then perhaps we should be having a different conversation: should we in fact be directing more funding towords satellites to get better space telescopes in the air and simultaneously improve research while future proofing against the inevitable filling of the night sky by satellites as launch costs continue to come down?