Budgets are fixed, so again this also boils down to "just do 5% less science."
Believe it or not, actually using 100% capacity on the big expensive telescope you paid for isn't some brilliant unheard-of suggestion like people seem to think. This Dunning-Kruger idea always seems to crop up whenever this particular topic is in the news.
There simply isn't any "slop in the system" that lets you get that 5% (and climbing!) back "for free." If there was, then that inefficiency should be fixed regardless of the situation with megaconstellations.
Doing 5% less science is an acceptable cost for full commercial space exploitation. I'd rather have internet service in 100% of the US than an extra few graduate theses.
And who knows, necessity is the mother of invention so one of those grad students could invent a way around it.
That's certainly one choice we can make as a society.
However my point is we shouldn't delude ourselves that there's some "easy" fix, therefore the cost should actually by counted as zero. This defense mechanism is misguided and uninformed, yet it's shockingly common to have it (or some variation) crop up when discussing this particular topic.
Personally, I blame the current tribalize-all-the-things trend. You're either on Team Starlink or Team Astronomy. Only two options. Pick a side, we're at war!!!
> And who knows,... one of those grad students could invent a way around it.
See? Shockingly common. :D
Even when we don't even have an idea, nevertheless we feel oddly compelled to suggest that maybe there's an easy ("grad student") solution that makes the scientific cost simply go away.
If we're willing to pay the cost in lost scientific data, then let's do it and say so. We shouldn't live in (oh so tempting!) denial about the downsides. That's all I'm saying.
Yes, but that's a system problem, not a user problem. The comment I replied to posited that a specific user would collect 5% less data. If you add ~5% to your grant proposal, you get the same amount of data.
As for the system problem, that is solved by building 5% more observing capacity. Or, more realistically, starting new telescope projects slightly earlier. This really isn't as complicated as you're trying make it out to be. Pot, meet kettle.
>As for the system problem, that is solved by building 5% more observing capacity.
If this is to somehow come from existing funding sources, I'll need a moment to pick myself up off the floor laughing. ;D Obviously those sources are already at their budget appetite.
Or maybe this an Efficient Market / Pigouvian suggestion, where megaconstellaton operators pay (and pass on to their customers) into an Astronomical Reparation Fund worth ~5% of current global astronomy funding, to be distributed to astronomical grants and construction of new observatories? Because sure, that seems fair.
If you truly believe (as do I) that we value internet access more than the loss of scientific data, then you'll agree the internet users can easily reimburse scientists for the damage and still come out ahead. "You broke it, you buy it."
> If you add ~5% to your grant proposal
..then I'll add 10% to mine!
It's a race to the bottom. Eventually folks get sick of it, so they enact rules and enforcement mechanisms to prevent padding. In the end all we accomplish is transforming an efficient & high-trust system into an overhead-laden, low-trust system.
