Prof. Sam Lawler@sundogplanets@mastodon.social
As long as I'm screaming, I hate hate hate that lower altitude orbits has become a standard request from astronomers to satellite operators.
Lower orbits make satellites blur out more for the specific setup of the Vera Rubin Observatory, I do not know if this is true for any other observatories in the world.
Lower orbits make satellites brighter and faster, which is worse for naked-eye stargazers and astrophotographers, and presumably for wildlife though nobody I know has studied that yet.
Christopher Kyba 🇨🇦
🇪🇺
@skyglowberlin@fediscience.org
@sundogplanets@mastodon.social I'm a bit confused here, can I ask a question?
As a person living a 21st century life, the thing that worries me most about the current developments in space isn't problems for astronomy, it's Kessler syndrome. I thought lower orbits help dramatically with that, because despite the much higher crash probabilities the debris will clear within a decade or two, and then we could maybe re-start the space program and be less stupid the second time around.
But if you put enough dead satellites at orbits above 1000 km, we can end up screwed for centuries.
I appreciate your main point that we should simply be more picky about what we launch and why. But arguing for higher altitudes given the current "anything goes" launch environment doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Where do you think I'm going wrong in this line of reasoning?
