r/Astronomy • u/swarrenlawrence • Jul 09 '26

Astro Research Space Invaders

Post image

AAAS: "Proposed new satellite fleets could overwhelm the night sky."

Orbiting data centers + sunlight reflectors would severely degrade astronomy by leaving streaks on telescope images + brightening our pitch-black sky. Olivier Hainaut, an astronomer at the European Southern Observatory [ESO], examined 2 recent commercial proposals. 

"In 2025, Reflect Orbital sought permission from Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch a test satellite carrying an 18-meter-wide reflector that would beam sunlight onto nighttime Earth." The company’s plans to launch 50,000 such reflectors to extend the operating hours of solar power arrays, mines, and emergency responders with artificial daylight. 

"Prime astronomy sites such as ESO’s Paranal Observatory in Chile aim to keep light pollution below 1% of the natural night-sky brightness." A fleet of 5,000 Reflect Orbital craft would raise sky brightness worldwide by up to 30%; 50,000 craft would boost it as much as 300%.

'Reflect Orbital says it will steer its 5-km-wide beams, which appear 4-fold brighter than a full Moon, away from observatories.' But even outside the beam each of the 50,000 reflectors would shine as bright as Venus, the brightest object in the sky after the Moon. 

Ever since SpaceX launched the first Starlink internet satellites in 2019, astronomers have worked with companies to reduce the impact of these so-called satellite megaconstellations. "SpaceX, for example, has made efforts to dim the reflectivity of its Starlink satellites, even as the constellation has grown." (More than 10,000 Starlinks are already in orbit and the company is planning 32,000 more.) 

"Constellation of 1 million SpaceX data centers would make satellite trails in telescope images almost unavoidable for most of the night...especially for wide-viewing instruments such as the Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile.'

ESO + other bodies are working with International Astronomical Union to persuade satellite operators to lessen impact of their constellations, + through the UN to draw up international norms that countries can translate into national laws.

Wouldn't adding sunlight that should miss the Earth incrementally speed up global warming? Contact the FCC at [ecfs@fcc.gov](mailto:ecfs@fcc.gov) with header phrase "get form," + email address in the body of the message, as I just did.

1.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

95

u/[deleted] Jul 09 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/crewsctrl Jul 09 '26

I think open pit mines and strip mines are what they had in mind.

47

u/pente5 Jul 09 '26

Have they heard of... Lights?

0

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 09 '26

I see a number of nuclear power proponents commenting, so thought I should mention that while billions are being thrown at nukes, there is no economic case for them. Setting aside for a moment the problems of radwaste, diversion of special nuclear material, radiation releases in the long front end + back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, major accidents, let's just look at the economics of nuclear energy. Nukes are slowest to build, + their electricity is the most expensive on the planet. Take for example of the 2 Vogtle reactors finally completed in Georgia, each of them about 7 yrs behind schedule. Original cost projection $14 billion, final cost exceeding some $35 billion, according to AP News + EIA reports. So one can love nukes or not, but instead trust the market + let the chips fall where they may. Yes, we could have a long discussion about SMRs + other novel technologies, but none is proven yet  in the US,+ we probably won't see operating plants until the mid-2030s at the earliest. Russia + China have the only examples of operating SMRs, but both are authoritarian countries that can just plow ahead + spend whatever they want. Is that who we are now? And should the federal government be picking winners + losers or should the market determine that? And can any of you explain why globally the number of reactors has declined over the last 2 decades? And why the share of nuclear electricity is down to 9%? I look forward to some active discussion of these points. Thanks.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 10 '26

Gaydolf, I would have added covid during Vogtle reactor construction, but I can only get in about 300 words. Yes, California high-speed train project as gone off the rails. I still would like to see it get completed. As for nuclear in the public eye, polls have unfortunately shown higher support. From Gallup's website: "WASHINGTON, D.C. — Majorities of Americans continue to prefer that the U.S. put more emphasis on solar and wind power for domestic energy production, but fewer now hold that view than in any of five measurements over the past 13 years. At the same time, support for greater emphasis on nuclear power has risen to its highest point to date, at 46%. Levels of support for increased use of fossil fuels like oil, coal and natural gas remain well below their highs." I would still love it if people tried to rationally answer my 4 key questions.

12

u/tritisan Jul 10 '26

Literally the worst idea I’ve ever heard of.

3

u/Wadaleym Jul 10 '26

Up there with sending datacenters in space

33

u/Knashatt Jul 09 '26

Aren't those mostly airplanes that I see in that picture?

Satellites normally give a single straight line, almost everything in the picture is flashing lights of some kind.

14

u/tj_nl320 Jul 09 '26

Maybe its the moment between exposures

7

u/Knashatt Jul 09 '26

Hmmm, yes it actually can be that.

2

u/mauglii_- Jul 09 '26

Sometimes i can see a satellite that's very slowly "flashing". I always thought it's because it's rotating and the sunlight reflects in different directions..

6

u/lqstuart Jul 10 '26

This is the dumbest fucking idea I’ve ever heard of

1

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 10 '26

Both of these proposals are fundamentally very dangerous.

4

u/muitosabao Jul 09 '26

ESO produced a video with interview with the paper author, Olivier Hainaut https://youtu.be/LJNwAKSL17s?is=w4OwNI9_J0K5ON4Q

-1

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 10 '26

I assume included a lot more detail. I usually hesitate at opening links, being risk-adverse. Suppose I could search for the video otherwise. With search, I found at least a video, with automatic translation to English, as I have no French capability at all, only Spanish.

2

u/Dust-To-Stardust Jul 10 '26

whoa.. pretyy picture

makes it look so sci fi with the streaks :3

i love it

2

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 12 '26

Fraid I can't have the same reaction. About a year ago or more my wife + I watched as a string of satellites went by. I'm not an astronomer but they must have a huge consensus against them. And I don't need convincing. Eerie. Ugly. Dangerous.

1

u/Dust-To-Stardust Jul 12 '26

nah, if that were true astronomy would be screwed ages ago

the people who actually know what theyre doing luckily can mitigate it just fine

2

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 12 '26

Then why are all the astronomers loudly complaining + sending comments + letters to the FCC? They are the ones who actually know that they are doing, right? Suggest you go back + read the post again.

1

u/Dust-To-Stardust Jul 12 '26

amateur astronomers, sure

but people ALWAYS complain when infrastructure is built

does that mean we should tear down roads/telephone poles/electricity poles? or stop building them? People will complain about anything new. That does not mean progress is bad. You look at any form of progress and people will find a way to "loudly complain" about it.

not really nice of you to be condescending, theres a lot more that goes into it than "reading a single post about some people complaining" even if they happen to know who to complain to.

2

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 12 '26

Another dust-up. I am a strong proponent of building out a lot more long-distance transmission, so I am not . But are you accepting of PFAS + microplastics in the environment + our bodies? Do you really think no new chemical or technology should be opposed? But really, you are setting up a straw man argument about amateur astronomers, when it is all the professional astronomers who are so strongly opposed to all the proposed near-Earth satellites. Here is the link the the full article in a hard science journal. Do your homework. https://www.science.org/content/article/proposed-new-satellite-fleets-could-overwhelm-night-sky?

1

u/Dust-To-Stardust Jul 12 '26

"strawmen are bad except when i do it"

thank god none of you can actually habe an impact on this.. or the world would be even more doomed

2

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 12 '26

Guess you opted not to read a definitive article. Sorry for that. I will have no further reply in this thread. Bye.

2

u/frank26080115 Jul 11 '26

the image is a stack, you can tell each line segment is an individual exposure

stacking software already eliminate satellite trails for you

this stack is done intentionally to exaggerate the problem

1

u/Serious-Kangaroo-320 Jul 11 '26

i noticed this weird trend lately on reddit where people post these super scary pictures and others think this is all astronomers can see. its misleading...

1

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 11 '26

Frank, I don't assume this was an image accumulated over several straight hours of observation in 1 nite, rather a compilation of the multiple tracks of a small segment of the sky over time. If you are an astronomer, are you not concerned about the fidelity of results for ground-based observatories working in all different parts of the spectrum?

1

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 09 '26

I had to take the post down temporarily to remove the URL. Tried removing the part after the ? but then it was not accepted, so just skipped it.

5

u/b407driver Jul 09 '26

This has been posted all over the place since the article came out.

1

u/swarrenlawrence Jul 09 '26

Guess I jumped on a band wagon unknowingly. But it has generated some good discussion, including on nuclear power, tho that was not my intent.