None of which is relevant to astronomers who depend on terrestrial telescopes to do their work today, so it’s not really a meaningful response to their complaints.

I'm so sick of people acting like Starlink is the end of terrestrial telescopes. Fucking insane. Actually inform yourself. A very low number of terrestrial telescope sometimes lose a slight amount of information. Terrestrial astronomy is fine and will continue to be fine.

It would, however, be foolish to assume that Starlink will be the only constellation of low orbit satellites.

How would you recommend informing oneself? From all the searching I’ve done and the conversations I’ve had, it’s basically: space agencies and astronomy groups are saying this project (and similar) will end up destroying billions of dollars of equipment, discourage further investment, create a ton of space debris, etc etc, then on the other side mostly people who get emotional about defending every Musk project and make arguments like “that’s okay because we’ll hopefully put up space telescopes in the future that will somehow satisfy the same demand for telescope time.”

I am not an expert at all but that at first blush that seems like bullshit. I’m 100% open to sources of info I should check out on this though.

Edit: FWIW another more believable argument than hypothetical future capacity satisfying the same demand would be “global internet is more important than terrestrial astronomy.” Not quite ready to say I agree with it but it seems very compelling!

There are presentations about this from astronomers and SpaceX. Where they present their issues and SpaceX presents what they doing about it. These are public and can be found. I don't remember where but they were youtube videos for different conferences. I can try to find a video when I have more time.

I have not heard a single one claim that it will 'destroying billions of dollars of equipment'. And most don't want to stop further space craft.

What they do call for is regulation about these things in general. SpaceX is basically doing them a favor by modifying their sats, there is no legal obligation.

Here’s a single $680MM observatory that looks pretty pissed and is struggling to figure out how they’ll deal with it. Granted probably won’t drive the value to zero, but it probably will devalue the project quite substantially, from my read.

https://www.lsst.org/content/lsst-statement-regarding-increa...

And I’m not arguing for stopping further spacecraft either.

“Hey they don’t even legally need to mitigate their externalities!” is usually a good sign of “things that need regulation.”

As I said, I was not arguing about regulation being bad. My point was its completely false to say that earth based astronomy is over. A minority of telescopes are not effected or slightly effected. But even small effects now will grow if you imagine sats going exponential.

The very broad survey orient visible telescopes are most effected of course.

Regulation both for visibility and for debris is warranted. But getting their by streaming 'earth astronomy is over and Kessler syndrome' is pretty counter-productive. If we can get away from that kind of language maybe we can actually make reasonable progress on these questions.

Unfortunately I can not find the series of lectures from astronomers and SpaceX. That had really go information. But there is an active working group somewhere that is meeting regularly that can probably be found somewhere.

I don’t think I (or anyone I’ve seen in this thread) has said “earth astronomy is over” or anything similar.

They’ve said: this incurs a huge negative externality on the astronomy community.

The response was: it doesn’t matter because Starship will send up space telescopes at some point hopefully (TBD how long it’ll take, if ever, for them to reach the same availability as extant terrestrial telescopes)

That is the counterproductive response.

It's relevant because they wouldn't be relying on terrestrial telescopes in the first place if they had access to space telescopes.

Why do they not have access to space telescopes? because they are currently extremely expensive to build and launch. Cheaper launches could also indirectly make the build cost a lot cheaper. It would allow them to iterate the design and send more units of the same models/design and reduce the design/research cost per unit.

> Cheaper launches could also indirectly make the build cost a lot cheaper.

This seems very handwavy. It appears space telescopes are actually more expensive because space telescopes are really expensive, not because it’s hard to move them to space.

Yes better/cheaper launches would reduce the risk, but that risk is 100% baked into the design and cost of the launch. There’s nothing the payload can do to mitigate the risk of the rocket failing, so there’s no reason to think x% of the telescope’s cost is actually due to the risk of the launch itself.

When you tell a team of scientist that budget only allows for a single launch in the next three decades, the cost of that telescope will inevitably be higher because they will want to optimize it and put as many instruments as possible. They will try to get as much science per kg as possible and verify a million times that nothing could ever fail. If deep space payload was a "cheap" commodity and the team designing the JWST were told they get to send 15 units instead of one, it would have been a much different situation.

Why would they only have a single launch for the next three decades?

They could take 10% of the JWST budget (not including launch) and buy back 6+ launches. Seems to me launches are not super relevant.