[ad_1]
A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket with a payload of 60 satellites for SpaceX's Starlink broadband network takes off last month from Cape Canaveral Air Force Base in Florida. (Malcolm Denemark / Florida Today / AP)
On May 23, SpaceX launched the first batch of its long-awaited satellite constellation, Starlink. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk praised Starlink's future ability to provide the Internet to the world as a way to improve the lives of those who do not have access to it. At the first appearance of the satellites, many fans of SpaceX were delighted by this vision: Each luminous point walked like insects lit up in the sky.
But the shocking brightness of Starlink has also sent astronomers into a real panic.
We do not talk about the night sky as a limited natural resource, but it's true. As the cities of the world have grown, the light has erased many features of the night sky. Humans see fewer stars than ever before. This is not a problem for those of us who like to watch; it's a problem for science. With thousands of objects in orbit above their heads, astronomers studying space are already struggling with satellite photobombs. Those who observe distant galaxies, the primitive universe or even the planets of other solar systems must collect data from the farthest regions of the universe. To do this, they use large ground-based telescopes that collect light for a few minutes, sometimes even hours at a time. When the satellites pass through the frame, they leave a bright trail. Sometimes these data can be saved, but on other occasions, the image is thrown away. This is not just a problem for optical astronomy; the frequencies emitted by these satellites also affect radio astronomy.
Coping with the effects of modern technology is not new to those who collect light for a living. But the ultimate goal of Starlink is the real problem. Currently, some 200 to 400 satellites gravitate around 373 miles above our heads, at the same altitude as the Starlink constellation. That's enough for the astronomical data. And Musk would like to turn this 400 into about 12,000.
Faithful to the fashion of Silicon Valley, Musk and his team did not consult any scientist, astronomer or ethicist on the significance of launching 12,000 satellites in space. "The fact that these new objects in the sky are as bright and brilliant as most stars was really terrifying," says Jesse Christianson, a scientist at NASA's Exoplanet Science Institute at the California Institute of Technology. "What this basically means is that some of the ground-based astronomical images, especially the vast field surveys, will not be as useful for science."
Prior to the launch of Starlink, SpaceX did not provide any public information on the location of the satellites. Astronomers scrambled and waited to see how serious it was.
[What the Air and Space Museum’s Kickstarter could mean for the future of space exploration]
When pics has begun hit Twitter of people watching Starlink scroll through their sky, many scientists began to worry. "When I saw for the first time the images that some astronomers put online, all these things, becoming as bright as the brightest stars, I immediately had a feeling of panic, because of the involvement, "said Jonathan McDowell, astronomer at Harvard. Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The panic was so severe that Musk and his team tried to dispel the concern of everyone by announcing that the next Starlink batch they would launch would be redesigned to look less bright in the sky. And Musk tweeted recalling that its goal is to provide the Internet world: "Helping potentially billions of economically disadvantaged people is the greatest good. That said, we will ensure that Starlink will have no material effect on astronomy discoveries. We care a lot about science. "
But if SpaceX really cared, why did not anyone bother talking to a scientist or two about what Starlink could do for observational astronomy, radio astronomy, and the sky in general? Even with a new design and modified orbits, bright satellite lightning and the reflection of their solar panels will remain a problem for those outside major urban areas. McDowell says, "You will always see them at the limit of your vision – it will look like the whole creeping sky. "
* * *
We all have a relationship with the night sky, whether we realize it or not. It's something we share in memory with our ancestors. This is perhaps the constant on the generations. We know that the people who have gone before us have seen planets and stars rise and set in the sky at the same time each year. This stable stellar light has been used for navigation around the world; many fishermen still use the stars this way. The North Star was a signpost for the enslaved people escaping by the Underground Railroad: it was the only trace of constant light that directed their direction towards freedom. And for many of us, being content with the beauty of darkness is enough to guarantee its value.
Sometimes these light beacons are not just stars on fire in other parts of our galaxy – some are whole worlds. Whole planets. The first time I realized this, I was 7 years old. My grandfather bought a small silver telescope from an astronomy catalog and took me to our front lawn, where we had planned to observe the stars in a hazy sky of Los Angeles. I always looked up like a reflex when I went out. For a child, these bright spots elicit a lot of wonder.
[There could be life on Mars. Of course we should try to find it.]
That little silver tube with skinny skinny legs on our lawn, but he knew exactly which bright spot he was trying to show me – and it was not a point at all. He turned to what appeared to be a random point in the sky and told me to put my gaze on the viewer, and a tanned and troubled world with rings appeared. "It's the planet Saturn," he said. I withdrew from the viewer and looked at the sky. Without the telescope, Saturn was only another star, indistinguishable from the rest.
SpaceX wants to add more bright spots to the sky, but at what price? Who is responsible for deciding what the night sky means for everyone else?
His not even certain the musk project will work. He estimates he needs at least 720 satellites to test moderate coverage, but even reaching this stage requires hundreds of satellites. The Federal Communications Commission has licensed SpaceX for the launch of these first 60 satellites, but there is no US government agency that regulates light pollution. There is no night sky disturbance protection committee to look into these types of effects.
But perhaps there should be one, especially since the Trump administration and some congressional allies are trying to reduce control over commercial space activities. (Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, also owns a commercial space company, Blue Origin.) If the Musk exercise succeeds, what will happen next?
"If you are considering 100 years, let's assume that [there are] 12,000 Starlink satellites, and you have 1,000 industrial installations in orbit the size of the [International Space Station], "Says McDowell. "Then you can see a diet in which you really can not do optical astronomy in a serious way."
For the moment, astronomers are waiting to see the damage done by these 60 satellites and more closely calculate what their work will look like if SpaceX continues to place more in the sky. SpaceX has not yet determined whether to launch the 12,000 users to benefit from the speed of its Internet access. Its minimum goal, however, is to double at least the number of satellites already present. It does not seem unreasonable to request hearings and consultations with astronomers, historians and others who may provide context for the entire project before another license is granted. If Starlink can not launch without damaging the night sky, SpaceX should find a less damaging way to give us access to the Web, even if it is less easy to use.
Anyone who has ever been in a very dark corner of the sky and followed the arm of the Milky Way or discovered a new star slowly emerging from the darkness knows that it is important to be able to stand in the air. Darkness to be affected only by nature. Witnessing the night in this way is deeply humbling. Standing below the space that connects us to the rest of the universe reminds us that we are part of the cosmos. We exist here together. And if we let Silicon Valley disrupt the night sky, we will never get it back.
Read more:
A planet orbiting our closest star was once science fiction. Now it's science.
Losing the Mars Opportunity rover, it's like saying goodbye to a friend
What it means for us to "see" a black hole
[ad_2]
Source link