this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
85 points (96.7% liked)

Astronomy

4030 readers
279 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] wahming@monyet.cc -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's the point of looking at the stars of we never reach for them? At some point the telescopes have to move into space, we can't stay earthbound forever

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Or we could regulate the reflectivity of satellites. No one is suggesting we shouldn't have satellites. Why don't we do satellites on purpose in a way that still allows us to also do effective astronomy?

[–] wahming@monyet.cc -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

No one is suggesting we shouldn't have satellites.

Many astronomers suggested exactly that, they were against the approval of starlink.

we could regulate the reflectivity of satellites

Starlink has been doing that for 3 years now. There are limits to how nonreflective they can get the satellites.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Standard issue Musk brain rot.

"Shouldn't have satellites" at all vs. "maybe let's not approve this one corporation doing this completely unregulated activity." If you really can't tell the difference between those two things, I can't help you.

"limited to how nonreflective they can get the satellites"

Citation needed.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Love how you also completely ignore the dozens of other companies designing and/or beginning deployment of massive satellite constellations just like Starlink. Some of them even multiple times larger than what Starlink is aiming for.

There very much are astronomers that have said they do not want ANY LEO satellite constellations.

This isn't just a Musk thing.