[maxander]

From a minute of googling, there’s roughly 5k satellites in orbit right now. Most of those are in a slightly higher orbit than Starlink’s (LEO) so they’re incrementally farther away, but would be in a better position to catch sunlight in the night sky.

And yet I, probably like everyone else who isn’t an astronomy enthusiast, haven’t ever looked at a light in the sky and known it was a satellite. They’re subtle, not dominating the night sky by any means, at least insofar as an untrained modern human can tell. Starlink would up the number of satellites by ~2x, perhaps, but would that be enough to change the basic equation?

[dingaling]

> at least insofar as an untrained modern human can tell

Perhaps, but that's irrelevant to this discussion which was initiated by competent experts in their field. Not like protests against 5G which are based on dodgy YouTube videos.

Starlink will have a significant impact on the global night sky based solely on the approval of one agency of one country of 8% of the World's population. Even if you as a layman don't perceive it to be a problem in your daily life, doesn't that just seem... wrong? If North Korea had taken such a step there would be sanctions.

[perilunar]

There's also 10,000+ aircraft (and over a million people!) in the air at any time, and those planes have nav lights and strobes that are much brighter than satellites.