Most of the theories would suggest basically an infinite number of parallel realities/universes. Such that it is incomprehensible and not worth thinking about IMO. What does it matter which of these universes you are in?

If they exist it’s a load of very minor differences. Like a single piece of grass not growing in the same place, or some molecule being in a slightly different place than it was in our universe.

My thought being that most of them relative to us have variants so minor we wouldn’t even notice if we’d see it. Like sure, horrors beyond our comprehension, but then there’s just as many where the differences are so minor if we could got to a parallel universe we’re likely to not even notice.

You could at least cull us some new clickbait rather than recycle an article from 2022. Weak stream.

JavaScript dates and time is about to get more complicated.

>Starlink pays for Starship which will make space telescopes affordable, and ground astronomy obsolete for science purpose

No. Launch costs are not what makes space telescopes expensive, and Starship won't make it possible to build space telescopes anywhere near the size of current and near-future ground-based telescopes. Space telescopes complement ground-based observatories, but they won't replace them anytime soon.

Problem there is 100 big satellites would have to be at much higher altitudes for global visibility, and that introduces significant latency. Further, at higher altitudes, there's no natural meaningful decay of the orbits in the event of satellite failure.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Jwst isn't a replacement for ELTs though, good luck putting METIS in orbit

Thanks for this rational reply. Please continue posting, we need more reasonable information when faced with sensationalist articles.

[removed]

Its swirling around an IFLScience style drain.

It really is past its best.

Yeah 100 big satellites would be a lot cleaner than 10,000 small ones

Kind of cluttery don't ya think?

It's certainly not an existential threat for astronomy, but in 50+ years might pose an actual concern for ground based based telescopes and an annoyance for amateur astronomers.

That was then. The current Scientific American doesn't hold a candle to its former self. IMO the decline started when they ceased publishing substantial scientific projects and experiments such as these in their Amateur Scientist column. So no, it isn't now "as good as it gets."

Regardless, the direct statements from professional observatories carry more weight, and that SciAm title is unquestionably click-bait.

First, strawman. Next, James Webb - they didn't build it to see how much money they could burn. Finally, Starship changes a lot of costs. 100 tons to the moon for maybe $2b or maybe a lot less is a big change in the cost calculation.

I bet if you took their current internet access away and told them that Starlink was their only option for getting back online a lot of people would start changing their minds real quick.

>Didn’t Starlink redesign for that purpose once already

Brightness mitigation has generally been more of an ongoing process than a one-off, though they've just done a major revision that launched only yesterday. SpaceX are all about design iteration, and Starlink is no exception to that rule.

The details of their previous efforts can be found in this document, and the details for the new design can be found on page 3 of this document.

Yes I'm sure a rocket will make Earth-based astronomy completely irrelevant. It's not like building things here is cheaper or something.

The needs of the many out way the needs of the few

Interesting article but it predates Starship anf Starlink. The data transfer issues can be overcome with a Starlink-like constellation. The costs of lunar landings will be mitigated by the relative low cost of Starship. Not sure about moonquakes. The big advantage I see on the moon is the cost of construction. Maybe it would be better to move to a Lagrange point but all that spacewalking would be an issue. Basically you need to build a space station to support the construction and maintenance. As for location, I imagine the poles would be best. Possibly in the shadow of a crater rim so the tempature is always very cold.

I love how Reddit doesn’t want the third world to have internet because a whopping 3% of telescope observations could be hindered.

Satellites don’t have flashing lights. They reflect sunlight

It's a pop-science magazine, not a journal.