The reason we don't use space observatories as much anymore is because we have adaptive optics now and don't need them. The concerns of astronomers are real. It's not for Starlink to ruin our ability to observe the sky for all of humanity. Incredible entitlement.
It's not for astronomers to ruin our ability to provide essential (and yes, internet is essential at this point) services for billions of people around the world that otherwise can't get it. Incredible entitlement.
It just depends on what you value more, observing the sky, or providing internet.
What right do you have to turn that statement around? Incredible entitlement. /s
But really adaptive optics is nice, and lets us compensate for atmospheric distortions. But not light filtered by the atmosphere. Or clouds. Or daylight. And we still have to compensate for quakes and vibrations, and temperature change. It's simply just cheaper to do on land than in space.
Imagine if it wasn't an order of magnitude more expensive in space. Or imagine a large telescope array on the Moon, where you get stability, ability to repair, and no atmosphere to get in the way. With SLS and Starship, all of that starts to look possible in the next 20 years.
I thought the main reasons were cost and maintainability? Both of which should be improved with the ability to launch larger, heavier, and more numerous payloads.
Seems like dealing with satellites is a truly trivial application of "adaptive" optics.
You can't possibly expect me to believe that you have the processing power and technical know-how to remove the influence of atmospheric distortion, but that you're helpless when confronted with discrete fast-moving objects for which you have ephemerides. Sorry, that dog just don't hunt.
Initial versions of Starlink would reflect so much light that they would overwhelm significant areas of the sensors. If the reflection issue is resolved with the new sun shades, then the satellite trails can be removed during post-processing.
