What I am saying if Elon or Jeff makes a telescope work harder or impossible they should pay for fixing the issue not the public and it should be fixed today not in 50 years. Also a tax on opoluttion would make the management at SpaceX considering using different paints(or doing more with less) in before the satellite is designed and not after bad PR.
IMO you did not convince me that the reason we don't have tons of space telescopes is the launch price.
IMO we will probably need to have a few bases on the Moon and build telescopes there to get around the light pollution.
SpaceX is doing what it can to "fix it". There's not much more that can be done beyond just not launching satellites. At this point, you have to choose whether you want clean skies or humanity spacefaring; you can't have both. I'm strongly in the "humanity spacefaring" camp, especially that once some sort of permanent industrial presence is established in the cislunar space, we will be able to build large telescopes in orbit or on the Moon.
> IMO you did not convince me that the reason we don't have tons of space telescopes is the launch price.
I'm trying my best :). Consider also economies of scale: expensive launches means your payload is pretty much unique, which makes it expensive. Cheap launches means you can make more, which drives architecture & hardware standardization, which lets manufacturing scale up, reducing its costs significantly.
The tax would also insensitivese to launch better/smaller satellites and not abuse the fact that launch is cheap so let's put as many stuff in orbit because we can (maybe US can get their shit together and use cables for internet like rest of the world) so Internet satellites would be used only by remote communities. IMO if you managed to somehow have electricity and old fashion telephone cables then what the hell is expensive to drag a new cable for internet to this places ?
That hinges on the quantifying and pricing of the solution. A smart accountant could probably figure out a fair calculation (something along the lines of % of wasted observation time, against operating costs of telescope facility in that time + depreciation). I'd love to see it.
> SpaceX tried to "fix" things only when bad PR hit them, before that some leaders there decided that this is not an issue.
I'll concede on this since I haven't been following the story until it hit media, and only then I've heard about SpaceX painting the satellites. I'm guessing they just didn't consider it at all, or were betting on astronomers not being that upset.
> IMO if you managed to somehow have electricity and old fashion telephone cables then what the hell is expensive to drag a new cable for internet to this places ?
That was before telcom monopolies, and also before people figured out they can hold infrastructure projects ransom, or block them out of spite, just because they own a piece of land that needs to be dug up or paved over.
Radhard stuff is expensive, but not that expensive. Also space missions don't need all that much compute - they carry only as much as is needed to operate the hardware and maintain a radio link with Earth. You don't use more than you absolutely need to, because more compute = more power demands = more waste heat => need more thermal management => heavier satellite => need to cut down mass (or power demands) somewhere else => ballooning R&D costs => ...
Look, I'm not making this up. It's widely known in the industry. See e.g. [0] and [1] for the first two references I could find. I actually learned about this concept from some NASA report that featured a beautiful flowchart, but I can't find it now for the life of me. But the phenomenon is real, and that's why SpaceX has been a big deal in space circles for years now. More and cheaper launches translate to a qualitative difference in how we approach space systems.
> There are many existing communication and navigation satellites but not that many space telescopes so I think this proves that launching shit is not prohibitive expensive
Communication satellites pay back for themselves in rent the owners can extract from the users. Navigation satellites are first and foremost military projects with huge implications for national security of the states that own them - which gives them almost infinite budgets. Space telescopes are research platforms funded by taxpayers, most of whom don't understand the importance and don't care to. Astronomy can't afford space telescopes at current prices.
--
[0] - https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1121/1
[1] - https://www.thespacereview.com/article/1918/1