From “EarthSky” : “How satellites harm astronomy – what’s being done”

From “EarthSky”

10.6.22
Kelly Kizer Whitt

Artist’s concept shows the 30,000 planned satellites from the Starlink Generation 2 constellation as of 2022. Different sub-constellations are in different colors. Learn more about how mega constellations of satellites harm astronomy. Image via The European Southern Observatory [La Observatorio Europeo Austral] [Observatoire européen austral][Europäische Südsternwarte](EU)(CL).

You may have heard the growing complaints from astronomers as companies such as SpaceX add more satellites to our sky. Astronomers are not against the communication networks that the satellites provide, but they have valid concerns for the future of ground-based explorations of the universe. And there is only so much astronomers can do on their own to mitigate the problem. A report from the 2021 conference for Dark and Quiet Skies stated:

“The advantages to society that the communication constellations are offering cannot be disputed, but their impact on the pristine appearance of the night sky and on astronomy must be considered with great attention because they affect both the cultural heritage of humanity and the progress of science.”

How satellites harm astronomy: The problem with increasing satellites

Astronomers face a variety of problems with the increasing numbers of satellites filling low-Earth orbit. Optical and near-infrared telescopes feel the impacts from these mega constellations. Some of the biggest are on wide-field surveys, longer exposures and evening and morning twilight observations when sunlight reflects off the satellites. The European Southern Observatory, the European Space Organization, reported these findings from a 2021 study [Astronomy & Astrophysics(below)]:

“The effect is more pronounced for long exposures, up to three percent of which may be ruined during twilight. The study also found that the greatest impact of new satellite constellations will be on wide-field surveys made by telescopes such as the US National Science Foundation’s Vera C. Rubin Observatory. Up to 30-50 percent of twilight observations being seriously impacted.”

The National Science Foundation NOIRLab National Optical Astronomy Observatory Vera C. Rubin Observatory [LSST] Telescope currently under construction on the El Peñón peak at Cerro Pachón Chile, a 2,682-meter-high mountain in Coquimbo Region, in northern Chile, alongside the Gemini South Telescope and Southern Astrophysical Research Telescope.

And because we’re talking about scientists, of course they’ve officially started studying the issue. Studies in 2020 [ Astronomy and Astrophysics (below)] and 2021 [Astronomy & Astrophysics (below)] showed the impact on optical and near-infrared telescopes. They found that telescopes such as the Very Large Telescope (VLT) and the future Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) will be “moderately affected” by new satellite mega constellations.

The European Southern Observatory [La Observatorio Europeo Austral][Observatoire européen austral][Europäische Südsternwarte](EU)(CL), Very Large Telescope at Cerro Paranal in the Atacama Desert •ANTU (UT1; The Sun ) •KUEYEN (UT2; The Moon ) •MELIPAL (UT3; The Southern Cross ), and •YEPUN (UT4; Venus – as evening star). Elevation 2,635 m (8,645 ft) from above Credit J.L. Dauvergne & G. Hüdepohl atacama photo.

European Southern Observatory(EU)(CL) ELT 39 meter telescope to be on top of Cerro Armazones in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile at an altitude of 3,060 metres (10,040 ft).

Some telescopes, such as the Rubin Observatory under construction in Chile, will experience greater impacts. These telescopes scan wide areas quickly. This makes them crucial in spotting supernovae or potentially dangerous asteroids.

The impact on radio astronomy

Radio astronomy has its own particular concerns. Radio telescopes don’t look in the visible wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, so it’s not the same “visibility” issue. For radio telescopes, the main problem is with the signals the satellites transmit down to Earth. Plus, radio telescopes aren’t only looking at dim lights in the night. They’re looking at the sky 24/7. So, satellites are a problem every hour of the day, not just at twilight.

But there’s more. A satellite’s signal is much, much stronger than the faint background sources that radio astronomers study. And a satellite doesn’t have to pass right in front of the object of study to cause interference. Satellite sources in a radio telescope’s “peripheral vision” also interfere.

The European Southern Observatory (ESO) described the potential impact of satellites on radio astronomy:

“They amount to hundreds of radio transmitters above the observatory’s horizon, which will affect the measurements made by our highly sensitive radio telescopes.”

Radio astronomy has some protection against interference. Radio astronomers call this spectrum management, and the Radio Communication Sector of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU-R) create regulations that help protect astronomers studying certain frequency bands and wavelength ranges. But the recent large constellations of telecommunication satellites pose new threats.

One recommendation is for satellite designs that avoid direct illumination of radio telescopes and radio-quiet zones. Also, the cumulative background electromagnetic noise created by satellite constellations should be kept below the limit already agreed to by the ITU.

Philip Diamond of the Square Kilometer Array Observatory (SKAO) summed up the issue:

“The deployment of thousands of satellites in low-Earth orbit in the coming years will inevitably change this landscape by creating a much larger number of fast-moving radio sources in the sky, which will interfere with humanity’s ability to explore the universe.”

SKA-Square Kilometer Array

SKA ASKAP Pathfinder Radio Telescope at the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory (MRO), on the traditional lands of the Wajarri peoples.

SKA SARAO Meerkat Telescope (SA), 90 km outside the small Northern Cape town of Carnarvon, SA.

What can visual astronomers do?

It would be great if a computer program could quickly eliminate all the satellites trails or interference from astronomers’ data. But it’s not quite that easy. One recent report outlined the problem of low-Earth orbit satellites on images:

“They leave traces of their transit on astronomical images, significantly decreasing the scientific usability of the collected data. Post-processing of the affected images only partially remedies the problem: the brighter trails may saturate the detectors, making portions of images unusable, while the removal of the fainter trails leaves residual effects that seriously affect important scientific programs, as, for example, statistical, automated surveys of faint galaxies.”

But there are some things astronomers could do, and have been doing thus far. They can avoid observing where satellites will pass, limit observations to areas of the sky that are in Earth’s shadow and close the shutter precisely when a satellite crosses the field of view. This all takes a lot of knowledge of the paths of thousands of satellites and plenty of pre-planning. Obviously, these are not realistic possibilities for many situations.

What can satellite operators do?

Another way to mitigate the problem is for satellite operators to adjust their designs (for example, darkening the satellite). They can also operate the satellites in a way that would raise their orbits out of vision of the optical telescopes, deorbit satellites that are no longer functioning, as well as other considerations for minimizing disruption. In several cases, the satellite operators have shown willingness to cooperate on this.

Unfortunately, the companies planning these mega satellite constellations did not warn astronomers in advance. So many of these satellites were already filling the skies without any restrictions as astronomers scrambled to figure out how to save their observations and lessen the impact. Their efforts led to the creation of a new center that is collecting data from the community, astronomers and the general public, among others, to learn more about the effects on the night sky.

Official efforts to reduce harm from satellites

In June 2022, the International Astronomical Union (IAU), together with the National Science Foundation’s National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory (NOIRLab) and SKAO, opened the Center for the Protection of the Dark and Quiet Sky from Satellite Constellation Interference (CPS). The center highlights the dramatically increased risk of interference from low-Earth orbit satellites – both planned and already in orbit – that provide broadband services. On their website, you can see a running total of the number of operational constellation satellites (2,994) and the number of planned constellation satellites (431,713), among other stats.

Co-director Connie Walker from NOIRLab said:

“Three years ago SpaceX launched the first 60 Starlink satellites. The number of satellites from this and other companies is increasing exponentially and impacting the field of astronomy. During the last two years, four key workshops identified issues and recommended mitigation solutions with the help of astronomers, satellite industry folk, space lawyers and people from the general community worldwide.”

In the peer-reviewed journal Air & Space Law [below], scientists at ESO published a study in September 2021 extensively warning of the dangers of unlimited satellites on astronomy. They’re trying to address satellite constellations’ impact on astronomy. They’re making efforts to coordinate solutions so both satellites and observational astronomy can continue developing without harmful interference.

A reminder of what we’re losing when satellites harm astronomy

One of ESO’s studies estimated that in the future, up to 100 satellites could be visible to the unaided eye during twilight. Imagine how that will change your own view of the night sky. Then imagine if your profession depended upon seeing what is beyond the satellites. How will we learn about the universe or detect potential threats to Earth?

The IAU created the Dark and Quiet Skies Working Group. As Debra Elmegreen, IAU President, summed up:

“Interference of our view of the sky caused by ground-based artificial lights, optical and infrared trails of satellite constellations and radio transmission on the ground and in space is an existential threat to astronomical observations. Viewing the night sky has been culturally important throughout humanity’s history, and dark skies are important for wildlife as well.”

Science papers:
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy and Astrophysics 2020
Astronomy & Astrophysics 2021
Air & Space Law 2021
See the science papers for instructive material.

See the full article here .

five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings
Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

Stem Education Coalition

Deborah Byrd created the EarthSky radio series in 1991 and founded EarthSky.org in 1994. Today, she serves as Editor-in-Chief of this website. She has won a galaxy of awards from the broadcasting and science communities, including having an asteroid named 3505 Byrd in her honor. A science communicator and educator since 1976, Byrd believes in science as a force for good in the world and a vital tool for the 21st century. “Being an EarthSky editor is like hosting a big global party for cool nature-lovers,” she says.

From Astrobiology Magazine: “Pluto a Planet? New Research Suggests Yes”

From Astrobiology Magazine

Sep 8, 2018

Credit: NASA

The reason Pluto lost its planet status is not valid, according to new research from the University of Central Florida.

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union, a global group of astronomy experts, established a definition of a planet that required it to “clear” its orbit, or in other words, be the largest gravitational force in its orbit.

Since Neptune’s gravity influences its neighboring planet Pluto, and Pluto shares its orbit with frozen gases and objects in the Kuiper belt, that meant Pluto was out of planet status.

However, in a new study published online Wednesday in the journal Icarus, UCF planetary scientist Philip Metzger, who is with the university’s Florida Space Institute, reported that this standard for classifying planets is not supported in the research literature.

Metzger, who is lead author on the study, reviewed scientific literature from the past 200 years and found only one publication – from 1802 – that used the clearing-orbit requirement to classify planets, and it was based on since-disproven reasoning.

He said moons such as Saturn’s Titan and Jupiter’s Europa have been routinely called planets by planetary scientists since the time of Galileo.

“The IAU definition would say that the fundamental object of planetary science, the planet, is supposed to be a defined on the basis of a concept that nobody uses in their research,” Metzger says. “And it would leave out the second-most complex, interesting planet in our solar system.”

“We now have a list of well over 100 recent examples of planetary scientists using the word planet in a way that violates the IAU definition, but they are doing it because it’s functionally useful,” he says.

“It’s a sloppy definition,” Metzger says of the IAU’s definition. “They didn’t say what they meant by clearing their orbit. If you take that literally, then there are no planets, because no planet clears its orbit.”

The planetary scientist says that the literature review showed that the real division between planets and other celestial bodies, such as asteroids, occurred in the early 1950s when Gerard Kuiper published a paper that made the distinction based on how they were formed.

However, even this reason is no longer considered a factor that determines if a celestial body is a planet, Metzger says.

Study co-author Kirby Runyon, with Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, says the IAU’s definition was erroneous since the literature review showed that clearing orbit is not a standard that is used for distinguishing asteroids from planets, as the IAU claimed when crafting the 2006 definition of planets.

“We showed that this is a false historical claim,” Runyon says. “It is therefore fallacious to apply the same reasoning to Pluto.”

Defining “Planet”

Metzger says that the definition of a planet should be based on its intrinsic properties, rather than ones that can change, such as the dynamics of a planet’s orbit.

“Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing,” Metzger says. “So, they are not the fundamental description of a body, they are just the occupation of a body at a current era.”

Instead, Metzger recommends classifying a planet based on if it is large enough that its gravity allows it to become spherical in shape.

“And that’s not just an arbitrary definition,” Metzger says. “It turns out this is an important milestone in the evolution of a planetary body, because apparently when it happens, it initiates active geology in the body.”

Pluto, for instance, has an underground ocean, a multilayer atmosphere, organic compounds, evidence of ancient lakes and multiple moons, he says.

“It’s more dynamic and alive than Mars,” Metzger says. “The only planet that has more complex geology is the Earth.”

See the full article here .

five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

Stem Education Coalition