> I do know there is a lot of significant astronomy done by space telescope and that the importance of space astronomy is only growing.

Former astronomer here. I would argue that the importance of space astronomy is actually decreasing. Satellite telescopes are most important at wavelengths that the Earth's atmosphere absorbs like IR, UV, and X-ray. At visible wavelengths satellite telescopes have been much less important over the past couple of decades due to the development of adaptive optics.

The main reason to put a visible wavelength telescope in space is that you avoid the smearing out of the source by the atmosphere. Adaptive optics solves this problem by correcting for the distortions induced by the atmosphere and bringing images to resolutions that are comparable to (though still not quite as good as) what you can achieve in space.

Since space telescopes no longer have the advantage of much greater resolution, there's much less of a compelling reason to use them for most research problems. (Some questions, of course, can only be tackled by using the highest resolution available.) On every other dimension space-based telescopes are inferior to ground-based telescopes. They are more expensive by many orders of magnitude, much, much smaller, and they cannot be changed once they're up (at least not easily). By contrast a ground based observatory can get substantially better over the course of a year by installing better detectors.

Adaptive optics have zero issues if you’re looking to make a cool picture, but they do introduce bias which is an issue for scientific instruments. That’s largely offset by more and larger telescopes for the same price, but it is very much a tradeoff based in launch costs which are falling.

IMO, over the next 30 years space based telescopes are going to play an ever larger role.

What about amateur astronomy? Are we now saying that only those with the means to afford space telescopes or expensive software can participate?

Are you an amateur astronomer or just trying to be the devil's advocate?

I'd be curious to know what the impact is on impactful amateur astronomy (as opposed to backyard hobbyists who are just engaged for personal pleasure). I know some amateurs use images created by public telescopes, I'm not sure how much meaningful work is done by amateurs using backyard equipment anymore.

Not being dismissive, genuinely curious.

Variable star observing is actually a place where amateurs really help, since it's about observation time, and not necessarily some hugely powerful telescope. And the more powerful a telescope is, the more people want to use it to point at all sorts of things, which makes it kind of expensive to use those telescopes for variable star observations which take a lot of time.

"Since professional astronomers do not have the time or the resources to monitor every variable star, astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can make genuine contributions to scientific research." [0]

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

And the Betelgeuse deathwatch!

In recent news, the only confirmed interstellar comet in our solar system was found by a dude who worked at an observatory (not as an astronomer) and decided to build own telescope for fun in his spare time. It's one of only two known interstellar visitors we've had, and because he found it early enough the pros were able to make very detailed observations.

A decent number of asteroids and comets are still found by backyard astronomers.

If SpaceX works out, we'll probably see a lot more telescopes in space. Wouldn't be that expensive at that point for, say, a school class to launch a telescope cubesat.

I'd trade amateur ground astronomy for that.

I'm not entirely sure how you think looking at an image on a computer screen compensates for the experience of doing observations with your own eyes.

There are plenty of good pictures on wikipedia already, do looking at those compare to going out on a clear night and looking at the stars yourself?

A LEO satellite constellation will absolutely not prevent you from looking into the night sky with a telescope and seeing stars.

"Seeing a star" is a low bar to pass, especially if you get a telescope to help you.

The dead of night will be fine. But during (astronomical) twilight, the time when you are most likely awake and looking up, it will have ugly extra dots.

Also I'm sorry but I really, really don't care about a hobby if it gets in the way of the progress of the entire human race.

Imagine if a painter in Greece in some century BC convinced his fellow Grecians that building a harbor in the cove by their town was a bad idea because it ruined his paintings of the cove. How was he supposed to look at the marine life if you stuck wood and industry in the water???

This. Every change has some negative effect. The question is whether the net effect is positive or negative.

What makes a dot ugly?