[autocorr]

Light pollution from satellite swarms is an economic externality. Any company can dump sewage in the river (and maybe the sewage is necessary for progress!) but the private sector profits by consuming a shared resource.

For the night sky and astronomy the externality is not so great in the grand scheme, but if unmitigated it does mean that there will be fewer discoveries per taxpayer dollar sent to the NSF/NASA. I'm a postdoc in astronomy and am all aboard Starlink-style networking. But it also seems fair to me that SpaceX should be the party that's responsible for treating that externality with light pollution, or else it's the same old "privatize the gains and socialize the cleanup." We've already effectively achieved this for radio astronomy by regulating protected bands in the spectrum for passive listening.

[godelski]

> if unmitigated it does mean that there will be fewer discoveries per taxpayer dollar sent to the NSF/NASA

Fewer discoveries _by ground based telescopes_.

I want to make this distinction because more access to space also decreases the price of space based telescopes. A swarm half the size facing outwards would also be an incredible tool.

(I do want to note to everyone that ground based telescopes will still likely be significantly cheaper for quite some time. But still decreasing the cost of space based telescopes is a huge advantage)

[kalium-xyz]

As far as I know, A lot of people will never have access to an analog space based telescope that they can look though with their own eyes. There will be a lot of people who wont like that.

[godelski]

These swarms aren't going to affect the average amateur astronomer very much. You'll still be able to look through a telescope no problem. These satellites are pretty small.

But, I should mention that Blue, SpaceX, Bigelow, and Virgin are trying to create access for space. Bigelow has an expandable module[0] with the explicit purpose of building larger space stations. Bigelow is specifically trying to create a private space station[1]. All these companies are also looking at lunar habitats. So yeah, there might be a period where people are not able to look through space based telescopes with their own _physical_ eye, but we shouldn't expect that period to last that long. If you are explicitly trying to colonize space, well you have to make it cheap enough for people to... go... Yes, it'll be super expensive at first, but that's true for almost every new technology (with typically ~20 years to reduce that price).

[0] https://www.nasa.gov/content/bigelow-expandable-activity-mod...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Commercial_Space_Stati...

[kbart]

"These swarms aren't going to affect the average amateur astronomer very much."

Not true. Most of amateur astronomers are also astrophotographers that is affected by Starlink's light pollution. Just look up any astrophotography group, I see posts of ruined shots by satellites every day.

[cameronsr]

Right now Bigelow Aerospace isn't doing anything. They were forced to suspend operations in March 2020, when the State of Nevada determined they weren't an essential business.

Article: https://spacenews.com/bigelow-aerospace-lays-off-entire-work...

There's currently no news when or if BA will resume operations. Even if they do, chances are most of their original talent has made other arrangements by now. From a staffing point of view, they'll be starting from scratch.

[robscallsign]

IANAA (I am not an astronomer), but I'm wondering - what are the implications for cheaper commercial spaceflights and satellite launches on research astronomy?

Isn't terrestrial astronomy sort of limited by the Earth's rotation, atmospheric distortion, cloud cover, dust, light pollution, electromagnetic storms, electromagnetic noise, and limited availability of real-estate to place telescopes?

[dylan604]

Yes and no. Yes, if there are clouds, optical telescopes can't see through them. That's why the really big scopes are built high up in the mountains above clouds. They are also being built in the dry desert air to prevent issues from humidity. With AO (adaptive optics), any atmospheric distortion can be compensated and removed from the images. So in some cases, we get better images from ground based scopes than space based. The size of the primary mirror is a huge factor. This image is a favorite of mine that shows the size of various famous telescopes[0]

It's also possible to build larger telescopes on the ground. It just makes more sense and cents to build on the ground than into oribit. However, something like James Webb needs to be in space due to the type of research it is doing. Also why it is getting sent so far away rather than a closer orbit like Hubble.

[0]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/96/23/15/962315f7e4d4f4191de2...

[godelski]

While I agree with this, I do think easy access to space also enables much larger telescopes in space. It would greatly decrease the cost of JWST. Though not enough to still compete with size/$ (GMT is planned at $1bn and JWST is $10bn, and GMT is like 7 JWSTs in size).

[dylan604]

What I would sci-fi utlimately love is the combination of both. Putting permanent bases on the moon, and then building whatever the sciencey word for lunar telescopes. They get the benefits of no atmosphere, and the benefits of being on the "ground" so things can be updated/fixed compared to just floating in space.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Makes no sense to me. Given you'd have the capabilities to have bases there, you'd also have the capabilities to fix stuff floating in space effortlessly. Btw. ground can shake or vibrate, which is no benefit at all.

edit: also electrostatically charged, abrasive dust particles.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_optical_t...

[robscallsign]

Thanks for the reply, that image is pretty compelling,

It seems that space based telescopes could be substantially larger than Earth based telescopes, based on not having to build a structure to support their weight then?

[dylan604]

Sounds like a good idea, except we have a hard time getting really large things off the ground. If you notice the size of the James Webb with its unfolding primary is still really small compared to other terrestrial based mirrors. It's mind boggling to look at the size of those mirrors, and then easily missed is the comparison to the former dish at Arecibo. Arecibo doesn't even fit in the image and is just an arc that looks like the background.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't know that the externality comparison and compensation is self evident.

it is possible that the positive externalities of satellite swarms outweigh that of ground based astronomy, and they should be prioritized for the visual spectrum.

[CamperBob2]

Key word being "ground based." SpaceX's work will likely lead to much wider access to space-based telescopes. That may turn out to be a more-than-fair tradeoff.

The other thing about LEO constellations is that they're not permanent. A polluted river may not clean itself up automatically after a couple of years, but LEO will. We can change our minds about the utility of LEO Internet constellations at any time. There seems no real downside to deploying them and seeing if all stakeholders can find reasonable grounds for compromise.

[wolfram74]

starlink is low enough that it will clean itself /relatively/ quickly, but even doubling the elevation get's into some very long lived debris[0].

If you wanted to tax these mega constellations to mitigate the externality they're causing, directing 2 to 3% towards orbital telescope production/launch costs arguably would be the most immediate remedy.

[0]https://twitter.com/torybruno/status/1407747990287171587

[s1artibartfast]

Any profit of US constellations will already be taxed at the 21‰ federal corporate income tax rate, so that already seems to be a moot point.

[foerbert]

No, it's not. These are relatively new problems posed by specific companies. If we say part of their taxes go to solving this problem they caused, then what about all the other things their taxes were going to before?

It's roughly similar to suggesting a tiered membership service should upgrade all customers to the highest tier without charging any more than they did last month.

[s1artibartfast]

The taxes don't exist prior to satellite network, so there is no before. Growing the economy grows tax revenues and adds new revenue to the federal budget.

It is like adding a new customer to your license membership service. Marginal costs are zero but they add to revenue. You can then use the extra revenue to develop new features.

[Beached]

that's assuming there are no deductions. I'm willing to bet every rocket explosion we see, is written off as r&d expenses and reducing their taxable revenue.

in a company as fast paced as SpaceX, I doubt they pay much in taxes yet.

[s1artibartfast]

I'm Confused, what would the lower 3% tax be on if not profit?

[CamperBob2]

What debris? There won't be any debris unless they hit each other. The SVs themselves are designed to decay after a relatively short period of time.

Agreed, though, I like the idea of taxing them to subsidize space telescope construction.

[stickfigure]

> the private sector profits by consuming a shared resource.

The public benefits from this privately maintained system. Irrespective of who profits, this is a service that I very much want, and I'm perfectly happy if Random Corporation XYZ makes a few bucks as long as I get the service at a reasonable price.

[sjtindell]

"The public" usually refers to the whole community and implies payment through a government or similar scheme. You cannot call your benefit from a private transaction a public good or yourself the public in that scenario. Otherwise literally all commerce is for public benefit. The comment was making a point about externalities.

[stickfigure]

It's a false and misleading point. It makes no difference whether SpaceX or NASA is selling satellite internet service.

This isn't a tragedy of the commons scenario, or a "privatize the gains" scenario. It's simply a competing use. For millennia astronomers have had near-exclusive use of the sky. I don't see why they should continue to be able to hog it all to themselves.

[wumpus]

Wow, those dastardly astronomers, hogging something that somehow isn't part of the commons. They should learn how to share! How about letting astronomers use the night sky every Tuesday?

[godelski]

Exactly. I love space and staring at the night sky. But being able to access the internet anywhere on the planet is world changing.

[mchusma]

I like to describe this position as NIMOP: Not In My Orbital Plane.

The idea that you own a view to infinity to me us more absurd than taxing me for breathing air, which is also a negative externality taken to extreme.

Let's put a quadrillion more times the mass in space. Let's build huge orbital rings, and take to the Galaxy. Let's get a trillion people living in space.

[wumpus]

It's usually called the 'tragedy of the commons'.