from the blot-out-the-sun-for-the-sake-of-innovation dept

Low Orbit Satellite Companies Respond To Scientists’ Concerns About Light And Environmental Pollution With Even Bigger, Brighter Satellites

Scientists say that low earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations being built by Amazon, Starlink, and AT&T pose a dire threat to astronomy and scientific research, and that too little is being done to address the issue.

Back in 2022, scientists declared Starlink satellite constellations an “existential threat for astronomy,” noting that the reflection and 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. That’s bad.

Worse, perhaps, is that more recent studies have shown that the disposable nature of these satellites means a lot of them will be constantly burning up in orbit, releasing all kinds of problematic chemicals and metals upon re-entry. It’s bad enough that scientists say it could imperil the repairs we’ve made to the ozone layer. That, is also, in case it’s not clear, bad.

In response, companies like AT&T and their Texas-based startup partners have responded by launching hundreds of even larger and brighter low-Earth orbit disposable satellites:

“The prototype satellite, BlueWalker 3, launched in September 2022 and unfurled its array around two months later. The company was quite proud of its size, “Made in TX—size matters!” Avellan boasted on Twitter, when referring to BlueWalker 3. Astronomers, however, were not amused.

BlueWalker 3 appeared as bright as two of the ten brightest stars in the night sky, Procyon and Achernar, through the lenses of different telescopes, according to a Nature study published in October 2023. Before unfurling its array, the satellite had a brightness magnitude of around +3.5, making it visible to the naked eye. However, after deploying its antenna array, its brightness increased by about two magnitudes.”

The justification for these services is that the companies are helping connect the disconnected. But the high price tag of services like Starlink means that the people most in need of connection (tribal, rural areas) often can’t afford them (AT&T has never been known for affordability).

Basic physics and capacity issues mean these services often don’t scale well, inevitably resulting in weird network throttling, caps, and other restrictions you’re not going to see on traditional fiber or even 5G wireless. Such networks are also expensive to maintain.

Low-Earth orbit satellite service definitely has its place. It’s great for niche applications (disaster recovery, war, some scattered rural access for those who can afford it), but it’s not really any sort of broad panacea for U.S. broadband access. In many instances, you’re still better off pushing “future proof” fiber deeper into rural areas and then using 5G or fixed wireless to deliver last mile access. Especially once you factor in the potential harm to the environment or scientific research.

U.S. regulators have taken a mostly hands-off approach to the disposable satellite market for fear of “stifling innovation” with anything even vaguely resembling competent corporate oversight.

There have been some recently-passed FCC rules designed to ensure companies don’t just leave space junk in orbit permanently, but they’ve yet to be meaningfully enforced at scale, and the agency’s authority is in jeopardy thanks to recent Supreme Court rulings designed to undermine regulatory independence.

Barely or badly regulated companies flinging mountains of metal into orbit with an almost total disregard for significant harms to scientific research and the environment? All so a few folks with disposable income can get a hundred megabits per second at their second vacation home or RV? I mean, really, what could possibly go wrong.