Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday August 29 2020, @02:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the new-normal dept.

SpaceX satellites' effect on night sky can't be eliminated, astronomers say:

Broadband satellites being launched by SpaceX and other companies will inevitably have a negative impact on astronomers' ability to observe the night sky, according to a new report by astronomers. There are no mitigation strategies that can completely eliminate the satellites' impact on astronomical observations—other than not launching satellites at all—but the report includes recommendations for how satellite operators can minimize disruption and how observatories can adjust to the changes.

The report released this week is titled, "Impact of Satellite Constellations on Optical Astronomy and Recommendations Toward Mitigations."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by sgleysti on Saturday August 29 2020, @02:43PM (8 children)

    by sgleysti (56) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 29 2020, @02:43PM (#1043744)

    If something belongs to the Moon first, it's an optical astronomy observatory

    Or a huge radio dish built into a crater on the far side.

    Why there is no one sitting over there for past 50 years already?

    We're too busy funding the military-industrial complex to spend that much money on astronomy. Also, I think Hubble has been serving well. Here's hoping they get James Webb into orbit and functioning properly.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 29 2020, @03:30PM (4 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 29 2020, @03:30PM (#1043753) Journal

    We're too busy funding the military-industrial complex

    Even that is small potatoes...

    "QE-cloud (that’s where central banks ditch all current pretense and simply start buying up the clouds passing over them in the sky..."

    It is a bottomless pit. We stopped counting a long time ago. All part of the insane clown posse (to steal a most fitting term), that still(!) has widespread support.. The event horizon is closer than it appears

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:39PM (3 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:39PM (#1043777) Journal
      MIC is bigger because it's real money. Meanwhile a good portion of QE just goes to purchasing imaginary assets or debts, with little impact on the real world. The real problem with QE is that it masks recession signals in the markets, leaving people more poorly prepared for what is to come.
      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:52PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:52PM (#1043783) Journal

        QE is also a pretext for austerity when they tell us there's no money left for social services or a decent wage to keep up with expenses. Real money is being stolen from our accounts in this fashion. Too bad everybody is arguing over bullshit, can't even agree on the color of the sky any more. Looking at the same thing, one says it was the butler, the other says it was Colonel Mustard

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2020, @07:53PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2020, @07:53PM (#1043917)

        The MIC is less of a problem because that money actually gets spent on something, so a fraction of it actually goes to wages. QE and other such gimmicks are not only a bigger pool but are a pure drain on the economy.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 30 2020, @04:02AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 30 2020, @04:02AM (#1044081) Journal

          so a fraction of it actually goes to wages

          In other words, paying an enormous number of people to avoid productive work. I think the MIC is an enormous drain on society and the economy because of stuff like that.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:36PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 29 2020, @04:36PM (#1043774) Journal

    We're too busy funding the military-industrial complex to spend that much money on astronomy.

    We've already spent far more than what would be needed for observatories on the far side of the Moon. It's not lack of funding holding us back, but that MIC. Just as in the military proper, there's plenty of spending, but it's inefficient on a scale that will be hard for future doddering bureaucracies to match.

    Here's hoping they get James Webb into orbit and functioning properly.

    Unfortunately, a great example of the MIC in action. How many James Webb telescopes could they have launched for the price of this one?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by sgleysti on Sunday August 30 2020, @03:09AM (1 child)

      by sgleysti (56) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 30 2020, @03:09AM (#1044056)

      Unfortunately, a great example of the MIC in action. How many James Webb telescopes could they have launched for the price of this one?

      I find all the cost overruns and delays unsurprising given the incredible technical complexity involved.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 30 2020, @04:46AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 30 2020, @04:46AM (#1044091) Journal
        The problem isn't that there's cost overruns and delays. It's the size of those cost overruns, and the length of those delays. NASA has gotten away with a lot of shenanigans in space science because nobody else does it and thus, there's nothing to compare. When there is, such as orbital launch vehicles, NASA demonstrates vast inefficiency, considerable sloth, and elevated risk compared to the other options. For example, for the money spent on the Space Launch System, NASA's latest attempt at a Saturn V-class rocket, we could have launched thousands of tons of cargo to orbit using existing rockets.

        A particularly glaring example of this was a NASA study on the development of the Falcon 9 vehicle which found that NASA would have priced the development of the vehicle for ten times [soylentnews.org] what SpaceX actually spent on it! That's not counting the inevitable cost overruns and delays which SpaceX experienced and NASA would have yet to experience!

        In the past, I've been accused of NASA bashing. But stuff like this happened throughout NASA's existence. It's not a fluke.