These scientists need to get over it and work around it.<p>This article frames the problem as if the value proposition of the science and the satellites is remotely similar. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Satellite telecommunication is greatly improving life on earth. Astrophysics, not so much. Just last week there was a front page HN article about how satellites may replace undersea cables for niche use cases. Starlink is just a major player in the space. This article is trying to utilize Musk’s negative reputation to its own end. The truth of the article would have been much clearer if it simply mentioned Starlink as an example.<p>There’s something to be said for satellites making true immersion in “natural beauty” impossible. Making that out to be negative is a matter of perspective. Frankly, I think it’s selfish to wish to hinder the massive gains in utility for humanity satellites bring.
So <i>how much</i> is it interfering, and how much is easy to mitigate? The limit should probably be a little higher than zero.<p>> In a study, published in the Astronomy & Astrophysics journal, scientists used a powerful telescope in the Netherlands to observe 68 of SpaceX's satellites and detected emissions from satellites are drifting out of their allocated band, up in space.<p>Huh? If you "use a telescope to observe the satellites", that's not proof of interference.
> Satellite telecommunication is greatly improving life on earth. Astrophysics, not so much.<p>Hard disagree for me. Astrophysics have previously confirmed some radical scientific theories that eventually gave rise to technology today such as Einstein’s General Relativity.<p>Starlink has done nothing for me.