light pollution – Techdirt (original) (raw)

from the first-do-no-harm dept

For years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk’s Starlink low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply put, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but never fully eliminated.

Now with Amazon joining the low Earth orbit satellite race, scientists are increasingly warning that the problem is getting worse, making night sky research more difficult than ever:

“A study published in the journal Nature this week shows that a prototype of AST SpaceMobile’s BlueBird swarm has become one of the brightest objects in the heavens. Another study documents how even deliberately darkened satellites are still twice as bright—if not more—than the limit astronomers have called for to minimize effects on space science.”

At a conference last week organized by the International Astronomical Union’s Centre for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference (CPS), scientists noted that even with active efforts to darken and reduce satellite reflections, such satellites are still more than twice as bright as the limit astronomers have recommended to curb such pollution.

Some astronomers have developed systems to track the thousands of LEO satellites being sent into orbit, but those solutions are costly and don’t scale particularly well. Worried that they’ll hamper innovation, regulators had largely been a no-shows on crafting meaningful guidelines; most of what they’ve developed so far has been voluntary.

Then there’s the question of: is this harm to scientific research actually worth it? It’s great to be able to get gigabit broadband on the back of your RV in the middle of nowhere, but capacity constraints and the laws of physics mean that, unlike fiber or even 5G wireless, such systems will always have some notable capacity limitations (Starlink speeds have consistently dropped as capacity shrinks under load).

Starlink currently has 1.5 million global users, when somewhere around 20-30 million Americans lack access to broadband, and another 83 million live under monopoly. Given the high price of service (up to 120amonthanda120 a month and a 120amonthanda600 up front hardware charge) such services also don’t address broadband affordability issues. LEO satellites aren’t truly fixing the underlying problem anytime soon.

Ultimately there’s supposed to be tens of thousands of such smaller satellites peppering the night sky. And while it will ensure you can get a decent broadband signal in the middle of nowhere (if you can afford it and can navigate the year-plus waiting list), there’s a steep scientific cost we’re not doing a particularly good job preparing for.

Filed Under: astronomy, high speed internet, leo, light pollution, satellites, space

from the sorry-about-that-whole-astronomy-thing dept

Fri, Jan 20th 2023 03:44pm - Karl Bode

For years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk’s Starlink low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply put, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but never fully eliminated.

Musk and company long claimed they were working on upgraded satellites that are less obtrusive to scientists (using dielectric mirror film and solar array changes to minimized reflection), but it’s Musk, so those solutions haven’t materialized years after they were promised.

That said, Space X and Starlink SpaceX has entered into a coordination agreement with the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to try and mitigate some of the worst effects its Starlink satellite network is having on ground-based astronomy observations. The issue was forced by the Biden FCC, which wouldn’t give approval full Starlink’s 30,000 satellite launches until such a deal was struck:

According to reports, the FCC gave permission for the company to launch 7,500 of the nearly 30,000 satellites it hopes to send aloft, while deferring consideration of the rest of the constellation and making a coordination agreement with the NSF a condition of the licence.

Musk being Musk, and the FCC being, well, the FCC, there’s no guarantee that the talks ever amount to much, that SpaceX and Starlink adheres to any requirements that come from the deal, or that the FCC will hold anybody accountable should Space X and Starlink fail to address concerns. That’s in large part because the agreements are entirely voluntary:

The agreement is voluntary, since beyond the FCC requirement for such an agreement in the Gen2 Starlink license there is no law or policy requiring SpaceX or other satellite operators to mitigate the effects of their constellation on astronomy.

Again, it’s worth reiterating that Musk insisted that none of this would ever be a problem. And regulators, wary of being accused of harming innovation, didn’t even consider acting until it was already a widespread problem.

It’s also worth reiterating that while Starlink is a useful service for those with no other broadband options, the system’s capacity constraints mean it can never really function at the kind of scale needed to truly address even just the U.S.’ broadband gaps. The service, with a $710 first month charge for hardware and service, still falls well short on a main obstacle to broadband adoption: affordability.

In the interim, astronomers have been forced to adopt elaborate and costly countermeasures, such as a system that tracks all low-orbit positions allowing them to turn off observatory systems when needed. The problem: the solutions place the onus on researchers, and they don’t scale to handle the massive incoming parade of low-orbit systems coming from SpaceX, Amazon, and others.

A voluntary overlay asking SpaceX and Starlink to at least try to not demolish astronomy could prove somewhat performative if there are no hard requirements or penalties involved.

Filed Under: astronomy, fcc, high speed internet, light pollution, low earth orbit satellites, nsf, scientific research, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink

from the government-is-not-always-your-mortal-enemy,-weirdo dept

Wed, Dec 7th 2022 03:43pm - Karl Bode

For years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk’s Starlink low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply put, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but never fully eliminated.

Musk and company claim they’re working on upgraded satellites that are less obtrusive to scientists, but it’s Musk, so who knows if those solutions actually materialize. Musk isn’t alone in his low-orbit satellite ambitions. Numerous other companies, including Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, are planning to fling tens of thousands of these low-orbit satellite “megaconstallations” into the heavens.

One 2020 paper argued that the approval of these low-orbit satellites by the FCC technically violated the environmental law embedded in the 1970 U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Scientific American notes how the FCC has thus far sidestepped NEPA’s oversight, thanks to a “categorical exclusion” the agency was granted in 1986 — long before LEO satellites were a threat.

Last week yet another study emerged from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO, full study here), recommending that the FCC at least revisit the issue:

“We think they need to revisit [the categorical exclusion] because the situation is so different than it was in 1986,” says Andrew Von Ah, a director at the GAO and one of the report’s two lead authors. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) recommends that agencies “revisit things like categorical exclusions once every seven years,” Von Ah says. But the FCC “hasn’t really done that since 1986.”

Despite the fact that low-earth orbit solutions like Starlink generally lack the capacity to be meaningfully disruptive to the country’s broadband monopolies, and are, so far, too expensive to address one of the biggest obstacles to adoption (high prices due to said monopolies), the FCC has generally adopted a “we’re too bedazzled by the innovation to bother” mindset until recently.

The FCC this year did recently decide to roll back nearly a billion in Trump-era subsidies for Starlink (in part because the company misled regulators about coverage, but also because the FCC doubted they’d be able to deliver promised speeds and coverage). And the FCC did recently enact laws tightening up requirements for discarding older, failed satellites to address “space junk.”

But taking a tougher stand here would require the FCC taking a bold stance on whether or not NEPA actually applies to the “environment” of outer space and low-Earth orbit, which remains in debate. This is an agency that can’t even be bothered to publicly declare with any confidence that telecom monopolies exist or are a problem, so it seems pretty unlikely they’d want to wade into such controversy.

Like a lot of Musk efforts (like the fatal public potential of misrepresented “full self driving” technology), the issue has been simplistically framed as one of innovation versus mean old pointless government bureaucracy. This simplistic distortion has resulted in zero meaningful oversight as problems mount, something that impacts not just the U.S. (where most launches occur), but every nation on the planet:

“Our society needs space,” says Didier Queloz, an astronomer and Nobel laureate at the University of Cambridge. “I have no problem with space being used for commercial purposes. I just have a problem that it’s out of control. When we started to see this increase in satellites, I was shocked that there are no regulations. So I was extremely pleased to hear that there has been an awareness that it cannot continue like that.”

I’d expect this issue gets punted into the bowels of agency policy purgatory. Even if the agency does act it will be years from now, and unlikely to apply to the satellite licenses already doled out to companies like Starlink and Amazon. And while there are several bills aimed at tightening up restrictions in the space, it seems unlikely any of them are going to survive a dysfunctional and corrupt Congress.

That means that the light pollution caused by LEO satellites will continue to harm scientific researchers, who’ve been forced to embrace expensive, temporary solutions to the problem that are very unlikely to scale effectively as even more LEO companies set their sights on the heavens.

Filed Under: astronomy, gao, high speed internet, leo, light pollution, low earth orbit satellites, mega constellations, starlink, telecom
Companies: spacex, starlink

Scientists Try To Out Maneuver Elon Musk’s Satellite Light Pollution

from the innovation-ain't-everything dept

Thu, Aug 18th 2022 12:55pm - Karl Bode

For a few years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk’s Starlink low orbit satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but not eliminated.

Musk and company claim they’re working on upgraded satellites that are less obtrusive to scientists, but it’s Musk, so who knows if those solutions actually materialize. Musk isn’t alone in his low-orbit satellite ambitions. Numerous other companies, including Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, are planning to fling tens of thousands of these low-orbit satellites into the heavens.

All to deploy broadband services that will only put a small dent in U.S. broadband gaps due to capacity constraints and the laws of physics.

While nobody has implemented a meaningful fix yet, researchers from the University of Arizona say they’ve developed a new satellite tracking system that will give researchers ample warning before low orbit satellites have the opportunity to screw photographs and research.

But it’s not really a fix. It’s probably not going to be able to scale with the flood of new low-orbit satellites being launched, it doesn’t actually resolve any of the underlying issues, and turning on and off massive, sophisticated systems like these incurs additional costs:

Frustratingly, the idea of using a sensor to warn astronomers of potential interference is also not ideal. Shutting off a telescope’s camera requires electricity, so it’s akin to powering down a desktop computer and turning it back on again—but in this case the computer is a rather expensive and gigantic instrument that’s used to make sensitive observations of distant objects in the sky. As a consequence, this method has the potential of driving up cost and lowering efficiency for studies of the universe.

Another problem is there are simply so many low orbit satellites being launched, the resulting space junk is creating numerous navigational hazards. US regulators, very much in character, have been largely a no show on either front, with a few occasional exceptions.

Filed Under: astronomy, elon musk, light pollution, low orbit satellite, satellites, scientific research, starlink
Companies: spacex

from the star-wars dept

Mon, Aug 2nd 2021 01:33pm - Karl Bode

For a few years, scientific researchers have warned that Elon Musk’s Starlink low orbit satellite broadband constellations are harming scientific research. Simply, the light pollution Musk claimed would never happen in the first place is making it far more difficult to study the night sky, a problem researchers say can be mitigated somewhat but not eliminated. Another problem is there are simply so many low orbit satellites being launched, the resulting space junk is creating navigation hazards. US regulators, so far, have done little to nothing about either problem.

Enter ViaSat, which clearly isn’t keen on having its captive business market disrupted by new competition. Back in January, the company urged the FCC to conduct an environmental review of SpaceX?s low-orbit Starlink constellation, arguing that the fledgling system poses environmental hazards in space and on Earth. Since the 80s, satellite systems have had a baked in exemption from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), excluding their businesses from environmental review. But the sheer scale of what Starlink and Amazon are doing (more than 50,000 low orbit satellites in orbit) should change that equation, ViaSat argues:

“…given the sheer quantity of satellites at issue here, as well as the unprecedented nature of SpaceX?s treatment of them as effectively expendable, the potential environmental harms associated with SpaceX?s proposed modification are significant,? the company stated.

?Relying on the Commission?s decades-old categorical exemption to avoid even inquiring into the environmental consequences of SpaceX?s modification proposal would not only violate NEPA, but also would needlessly jeopardize the environmental, aesthetic, health, safety, and economic interests that it seeks to protect, and harm the public interest,? Viasat continued.”

The thing is, ViaSat is most certainly only really interested in its own revenues here, even if the concerns it’s pushing are legitimate ones. But after petitioning for change saw no reaction at the FCC, ViaSat sued the agency last May, demanding a pause of Starlink satellite broadband deployments. This week, judges made it clear that wasn’t going to happen. Though the court’s order (pdf) did grant a motion to expedite the appeal, which should speed up the legal feud somewhat.

The FCC and Space X have largely been aligned on this issue, insistent that any environmental harms can be mitigated. Space X, meanwhile, quite correctly notes that ViaSat’s environmental concerns are likely performative and its arguments not entirely consistent:

“Viasat’s newfound environmentalism is belied by its actions at every turn. Viasat failed to raise any environmental concerns in connection with any other satellite authorization, including SpaceX’s authorization to operate Starlink satellites at a different altitude and its prior request (nearly identical to the one at issue here) to lower many of those satellites. To the contrary, Viasat?a non-US licensee that has previously sought to escape Commission regulation altogether?ultimately relies on “competitive harm” to support its stay request. But stifling competition and protecting profits is not what NEPA is about.”

But again, ViaSat is correct that the concerns about space junk and light pollution are legitimate ones that aren’t being taken particularly seriously at the FCC. But the solution to that problem likely isn’t going to come at the hands of a company predominately and transparently only looking out for its own best interests.

The FCC under both Trump and Biden has been very eager to give Musk’s Starlink pretty much anything it wants, including some extremely dubious subsidies. All of this favorable treatment and subsidization comes despite the fact Starlink isn’t going to have quite the innovative impact many assume. As noted previously, the service will only have the capacity to reach 400 to 800,000 subscribers in its first few years (a max of 6 million several years from now), a small drop in the bucket when you consider upwards of 42 million Americans lack broadband access, and another 83 million live under a broadband monopoly.

So there are still legitimate questions here about whether Starlink will really be worth the cost(s), and whether Starlink will be able to remain financially viable (the majority of past efforts on this front have not). And while a self-interested competitor like ViaSat may have been the wrong messenger for worries about space junk and light pollution, the concerns themselves likely aren’t going anywhere.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, light pollution, satellite broadband, space pollution, starlink
Companies: spacex, starlink, viasat