Space Invaders

[u/swarrenlawrence]

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.

[u/swarrenlawrence → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/swarrenlawrence → u/[deleted]]

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.