SpaceX Launch Highlights Threat to Astronomy.

[NNadir]

This is a news item from Nature. I believe it's open sourced, since I didn't need to login to access it.

It's here: SpaceX launch highlights threat to astronomy from ‘megaconstellations’

Nature News November 11, 2019.

It's another way how present day consumers are denuding the future of humanity for mere amusement, demonstrating contempt for all future generations, now by foreclosing the night sky.

A graphic:



Some text:

Spaceflight company SpaceX is set to launch 60 communications satellites into orbit today as the basis for a web of spacecraft designed to provide global Internet access. But many astronomers worry that such ‘megaconstellations’ — which are also planned by other companies that could launch tens of thousands of satellites in the coming years — might interfere with crucial observations of the Universe. They fear that megaconstellations could disrupt radio frequencies used for astronomical observation, create bright streaks in the night sky and increase congestion in orbit, raising the risk of collisions.

SpaceX aims to launch its second set of these satellites — called Starlinks — from Cape Canaveral, Florida, just before 10 a.m. local time; the first 60 went up in May. But these launches are just the beginning: by the end of 2020, there could be hundreds of Starlinks in orbit, and SpaceX envisions thousands in the years to come. Other companies such as Amazon, headquartered in Seattle, Washington, and London-based OneWeb are planning launches that altogether could more than double the number of existing satellites. They are meant to bring fast, reliable Internet to underserved communities worldwide, with other potential applications, including improved satellite Internet service for military planes.


Although it’s not clear how many of the planned megaconstellations will actually be built, several researchers have begun to analyse how the satellite networks could affect astronomy. The situation doesn’t seem as bad as initially feared, but might still dramatically shift how some astronomers do their jobs...

...Within the next year or so, SpaceX plans to launch an initial set of 1,584 Starlink satellites into 550-kilometre-high orbits. At a site like Cerro Tololo, Chile, which hosts several major telescopes, six to nine of these satellites would be visible for about an hour before dark and after dawn each night, Seitzer has calculated.

Most telescopes can deal with that, says Olivier Hainaut, an astronomer at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Garching, Germany. Even if more companies launch megaconstellations, many astronomers might still be okay, he says. Hainaut has calculated that if 27,000 new satellites are launched, then ESO’s telescopes in Chile would lose about 0.8% of their long-exposure observing time near dusk and dawn. “Normally, we don’t do long exposures during twilight,” he says. “We are pretty sure it won’t be a problem for us.”

But an upcoming, cutting-edge telescope could be in bigger trouble. The US Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) will use an enormous camera to study dark matter and dark energy, asteroids and other astronomical phenomena. It will survey the entire visible sky at least once every three nights, starting in 2022. Because the telescope has such a wide field of view, satellites trailing across the sky could affect it substantially, says Tony Tyson, an astronomer at the University of California, Davis, and the LSST’s chief scientist.

He and his colleagues have been studying how up to 50,000 new satellites — an estimate from companies’ filings with the US government — could affect LSST observations. Full results are expected in a few weeks, but early findings suggest that the telescope could lose significant amounts of observing time to satellite trails near dusk and dawn.

I know...I know...I know. Here on the left this asinine billionaire child Elon Musk is some kind of hero, because, on a planet where over 1 billion people lack access to any kind of improved sanitation, he makes electric car playthings for billionaires and millionaires.

Personally, this mentality appalls me.

I'll chalk up the worship of this tiresome fool as yet another example of why history won't forgive us, and again, there's no reason it should.

"OK boomer..."

I trust you're having a nice evening.

[Miguelito Loveless]

1. I am neither a billionaire, nor a millionaire

But I drive EVs. Initially used, but I did get a Model 3 last year. It was my first new car ever. I have gone from burning around 800 gallons a year in 2014, to zero these days.

On average, each EV bought, new or used, means 500-600 gallons of gas unburned each year.

With about 1.1 millions EVs in the US through 2018, that means about 1.2 millions gallons of gasoline/diesel is not being burned each day. Sales of EVs are small, but growing by double digits. Slightly less than 200K were sold in the US in 2018, with almost double that number expected this year.

Ten years ago, an EV would have cost you over $100K, and were “toys of the rich”. Today, new ones can be had for under $30K, and used ones for under $8K.

There are many reasons to criticize Musk, and he has made many enemies:

The oil/coal industry
The legacy auto industry
Defense contractors
Cable/Telecomm industry
Wall Street hedge fund managers
Wall Street short sellers
Insurance companies
Frackers
Pipeline companies
Climate deniers
Electric utilities

Pretty much the hardcore base of the GOP.

The EVs he is selling means cheaper and cleaner transportation. The satellites he is launching means cheaper phone and internet access worldwide. The solar PVs he Is selling means cheaper and cleaner power, not just in the US, but almost everywhere, and without pipelines, coal mines, or gas fracking. The battery packs he is selling coupled with renewable wind/solar/hydro means an end to coal/gas fired plants power plants.

Musk has been called “one white cat short of a Bond villain”, but on balance, he is doing more good than harm.

[NNadir]

2. Um, you do know how electricity is generated, don't you?

How about lithium batteries? Do you known whence the cobalt in them comes?

I do.

I certainly and definitely do not connect a damned thing about Elon Musk with the principles of liberalism that I have held for all of my adult life.

Liberalism for me isn't about glib "aren't I wonderful because I bought..." consumerism, and pretending the car I drive is a sustainable "green," car.

The car CULTure is not sustainable, nor will it ever be so.

My liberalism is Eleanor Roosevelt liberalism. I care not a whit about people's cars, but care far more about people, including kids digging cobalt in the DRC for electric cars so rich people can report, smugly, how "green" they are.

Musk is, in my view, a disgusting ass, selling snake oil, and his willful destruction of orbital space for a cartoon version of consumerism is a crime against all future generations.

I have no idea what you paid for your "model 3," but it seems very likely to me that it is almost certainly equal to the annual income of hundreds of citizens of the "Democratic" "Republic" of the Congo.

Forty five percent of young people, globally, live on less than two dollars a day.

You may think of Musk as the anti-Republican, but as an Eleanor Roosevelt Democrat, I see him very differently. I care more about those kids living on less than two dollars a day than I do about your "green" car.

How many kids could live on the cost of your car? Some of them provided the stuff that went into manufacturing it; and others will suffer the health consequences of "recycling" it when it becomes landfill. Did Elon Musk see that they got a fair share for living under the wrong end of rifle barrels while digging " target="_blank">coltan?

I own a car. It follows that I am rich. It's not an electric car, but it's a car. Again, it follows that I'm rich.

Now, a $50,000 car implies a five figure salary, and a five figure salary implies a million dollars a decade. That's how I do math. You may do it differently, but that's how I do it.

Despite what you might have heard, the oil companies love electric cars. After all, they are fracking like hell to get to natural gas, and increasingly, that's what the majority of power plants in this country burn, increasingly.

There is not enough cobalt and lithium on this planet to make one billion Musk type cars, and if there were, owing to the laws of thermodynamics, it would accelerate climate change, not slow it.

By the way, do you know how aluminum is made? I do. Steel? How about polymers? I've studied all these things. Many of the posts in my journal here touch on these things.

Congratulations, though, for being so "green."

If I'm unimpressed, it's only because I have spent a great deal of time understanding the sources of energy, including electricity (which is a degenerate form of energy and not, as people seem so willing to pretend, primary energy).

I also think a great deal about the physical science of thermodynamics.

Batteries waste energy. That's a function of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is inviolable. The idea that batteries are a force for good and will save the world is so absurd as to border on pure faith based dogma and similar to a claim that the cure for cancer is buying amulets in a magic shop or reading books in the Christian Science Reading room.

We have a cancer on this planet, and cars are an example of metastasis. More cars, even different cars, are not a cure for this cancer.

[cstanleytech]

3. "The car CULTure is not sustainable, nor will it ever be so." I assume you meant given current

technology now and in the near future as its not possible to entirely predict what tech we may consider impossible now might actually be possible down the road.

[Miguelito Loveless]

4. Yes, in fact I do know how electricity is generated

I have reviewed the mix by state and country, and am involved in a number of solar projects, and have been for 5 years. I have also been a thorn in the side at public hearings of my local utilities.

I know how lithium batteries are made and how they can be recycled, the energy involved in their creation, and how people routinely misrepresent these facts.

And I know where cobalt comes from, how it is mined, who mines it, and how it is used in various industries.

I have never called Musk a liberal, so I don't know where that came from. Musk's politics are a murky mix of libertarianism, some conservatism, but a good dose of environmentalism. He is certainly a better engineer than a politicians or pundit. He also has a serious lack of social skills and allows his temper to get the best of him.

The car CULTure is not sustainable, nor will it ever be so.

Alea jact est
Genie cannot be put back in the bottle
That ship has sailed
Crying over spilt milk

Please pick your preferred cliche.

Car culture cannot be sustained as it is now, but neither can transportation revert to what it was in the past, short of nuclear war or a retrograde desire to return to a pre-industrial, agrarian society. We certainly can make cars less damaging to the environment by several orders of magnitude, reduce the number in use, and make changes to our urban planning so as to be more bike and small vehicle friendly.

But care far more about people, including kids digging cobalt in the DRC for electric cars so rich people can report, smugly, how "green" they are.

A couple of points:

1) Because of the use of child labor in cobalt mining in the DRC, companies are auditing suppliers and rejecting supplies from such sources. No one seemed to care much about this topic until EVs became a thing, posing a danger to automakers and oil companies, then suddenly this was a concern.

2) Also interesting is the fact that EVs use only a fraction of the cobalt supply than the auto industry (which uses it as a steel alloy, in electronics, and in catalytic converters) and the oil industry where it is uses extensively in oil refineries to make gasoline, jet fuel, etc. Also, the vast majority of Li-Ion batteries sold go into cell phones, laptops, and many other consumer goods. EVs are catching up and will be the dominant user in a few years.

3) Tesla reduced the amount of cobalt in its batteries by 50% since production started. They intend to phase out cobalt entirely within the next few years as they deploy new, more environmentally friendly and recyclable, battery chemistry.

Musk is, in my view, a disgusting ass, selling snake oil, and his willful destruction of orbital space for a cartoon version of consumerism is a crime against all future generations.

Well, that certainly your opinion of what he is doing. And I can see your take on the issue. Personally, I have always thought that anything that allows world-wide, cheap communication was a net positive for the planet. The ability to talk to people in other countries has, in my lifetime, gone from something only the reasonably well off could afford, to affordable by most of the planet's population. The areas where such communication is not available is the fault of satcom companies, who claim they can't make a profit covering such areas, so they won't. SpaceX has reduced the cost of such coverage by about two orders of magnitude, by building rockets that are 85% reusable.

We can certainly argue about whether more information is better than less information, but that is a different conversation.

You may think of Musk as the anti-Republican, but as an Eleanor Roosevelt Democrat, I see him very differently. I care more about those kids living on less than two dollars a day than I do about your "green" car.

How many kids could live on the cost of your car? Some of them provided the stuff that went into manufacturing it; and others will suffer the health consequences of "recycling" it when it becomes landfill.

Is this the argument you want to pursue? Do you have a cell phone? Do you have a computer? What do you eat? You mention below that you have a car, so what about how many kids could live on the cost of your car? If we live in industrial world, especially the US, we have a lot of sins to atone for.

As to the health consequences of recycling EVs, we are not dropping cars into landfills, or at the bottom of ponds any more. That kind of went out of fashion in the 60s in LBJ's administration. The vast majority of cars are resold and used until they can't be anymore. Then they are sent to car shredders that recover 80%-90% off the materials for recycling. EVs are easier to recycle as their battery packs are modular, and can be when no longer useful for transport, re-used or another decade for stationary power storage, something that will help with the adoption of renewables by allowing power to be banked for later use (EVs can also provide this service in the future, as they are rolling batteries).

Given the choice of working to recycle conventional cars, with about a dozen different toxic, flammable and corrosive fluids, and EVs, I'd choose you recycle EVs, which require just a few precautions and are easier to dismantle.

I own a car. It follows that I am rich. It's not an electric car, but it's a car. Again, it follows that I'm rich.

Now, a $50,000 car implies a five figure salary, and a five figure salary implies a million dollars a decade. That's how I do math. You may do it differently, but that's how I do it.

First off, $12K a year is a "five figure salary" By this logic, everyone is a millionaire if you simply adjust for time. at $25K a year, in 40 years, I am a millionaire.

What does a $35K car imply? How about $27.5K? Again, until this car, all my cars were used and and bought for a quarter, to a third of their new price. My first EV, a Nissan Leaf, was bought for under $15K.

As to who is "rich" that can be a matter of context. The person who has a car that runs is arguably richer than the person lacking one who needs one. The term "rich" can be thrown around as a pejorative to anyone making more money than me, who does things with their money I don't approve of.

I can pay my bills, but like the majority of Americans I am one serious injury or catastrophic illness away from bankruptcy. Am I rich? To many, yes, I am because I can pay my bills.

Despite what you might have heard, the oil companies love electric cars. After all, they are fracking like hell to get to natural gas, and increasingly, that's what the majority of power plants in this country burn, increasingly.

Sorry, but no. Solar/wind power generation is now cheaper than gas, and even coal in many places. Yes, intermittency is a problem, but that is being addressed with power storage in for of a variety of batteries like Li-Ion, pumped storage, gravity batteries, and yes, even EVs through the V2G (vehicle-to-grid) protocol.

The Kochs actively fund a number of astroturf anti-EV groups all over the country. I know about them because I run into them at public hearings and trip over their lobbyists in the halls of state and local government.

Setting all of that aside, even if all electricity was generated from methane, EVs would still be better for the environment and for people's health, since electric motors are 90%-95% efficient versus an internal combustion engine that wastes 75% of its energy as heat. In the last decade coal fired plants have been closing down in record numbers. And while methane powered plants are still being built, they are becoming less economically viable every year. A gas plant is built with a 25-30 year life, with ROI profits starting 12-15 years in. A plant built today, will never turn a profit, since solar/wind generation with battery storage will be cheaper than gas plants in 10 years. Plants built more than a decade ago will be hemorrhaging money in a few years.

Hydro, solar and wind are the only power generating technologies where the fuel comes to you. No exploring, drilling, fracking, piping, refining, or transporting required. The fuel cost is LITERALLY zero.

There is not enough cobalt and lithium on this planet to make one billion Musk type cars, and if there were, owing to the laws of thermodynamics, it would accelerate climate change, not slow it.

*sigh*. No. Even if this were unarguably true, again, cobalt is being phased out of Li-Ion batteries. Also, Lithium is a major ingredient of current batteries used for EVs, but other chemistries are on the horizon. So, by the time one might be worried about the cobalt supply, it won't be needed. And by the time people might start to worry about "running out of lithium", other battery types will be replacing.

Also, other companies besides Musk make EVs. Hopefully a lot more will.

By the way, do you know how aluminum is made? I do. Steel? How about polymers? I've studied all these things. Many of the posts in my journal here touch on these things.

Congratulations, though, for being so "green."

Please point to where I claimed to be "green". I simply shared my experience with, and knowledge of, EVs and solar with you. For some reason this seem to have royally pissed you off, given the tone of your response.

For this I can only apologize.

How would you suggest we replace metals, polymers, etc in our current society, and on what time scale?

If I'm unimpressed, it's only because I have spent a great deal of time understanding the sources of energy, including electricity (which is a degenerate form of energy and not, as people seem so willing to pretend, primary energy).

I also think a great deal about the physical science of thermodynamics.

Okay, this one genuinely puzzles me. Pretty much all energy we use as humans is "degenerate". Oil/coal/gas are products of pressure and organic decay. Nuclear energy is a product of radioactive decay, which might be a primary source, unless one wishes to argue about the Big Bang being the actual source of radioactive elements.

What do you consider a "primary" energy and how would we humans use it.

The only other use of the term "degenerate energy" that I know of would refer to eigenstates, but I am at a loss as to how it would apply.

Batteries waste energy. That's a function of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is inviolable.

Certainly. Entropy is the the universal law of existence. All "engines" involve a transition of matter from an ordered state to a disordered state. Our task, as it were, is to choose a system which results in the greatest efficiency (least entropy) of energy use.

From start to finish, that is pretty much an EV when it comes to ground transportation, especially when the alternative is an internal combustion engine.

The idea that batteries are a force for good and will save the world is so absurd as to border on pure faith based dogma and similar to a claim that the cure for cancer is buying amulets in a magic shop or reading books in the Christian Science Reading room.

Having spent a good bit of time reading, and re-reading your thoughts, I spent a lot of time formulating a reply. At no time did I claim that "batteries are a force of good in the word", they are however, a better choice than continuing to build the cars we have used for the last century, and extracting the fuel for such cars, and burning such fuel. The religious analogy was particularly depressing to read, though I admit I was initially quite offended by the characterization of my views.

I have read your posts on occasion, and have found them interesting, if somewhat dense. I read them as they required me to break out my rusty math, chemistry and physics lessons of old to follow along. I think I shall stick to reading them in the future, and refrain from comment.