NRAO Statement on Starlink and Communication Satellite Constellations
60 Starlink satellites begin to separate after deployment from the Falcon 9 second stage. (Credit: SpaceX webcast)
National Radio Astronomy Observatory Statement
Recent news reports of planned constellations of communication satellites, including the SpaceX Starlink proposal, have pointed out the potential impacts these systems may have on radio astronomy. For decades, the U.S. National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) and the Green Bank Observatory (GBO), in cooperation with the National Science Foundation, have worked to ensure that innovations in communications can advance while still preserving our ability to explore the Universe from Earth and conduct essential fundamental research through radio astronomy.
Most recently, the NRAO and GBO have been working directly with SpaceX to jointly analyze and minimize any potential impacts from their proposed Starlink system. These discussions have been fruitful and are providing valuable guidelines that could be considered by other such systems as well. To date, SpaceX has demonstrated their respect for our concerns and their support for astronomy. This includes an agreed-upon protocol to monitor impacts and address issues to NRAO’s current and future cutting-edge research facilities. We continue to monitor, analyze, and discuss the evolving parameters of the SpaceX system. Among the many proposals under consideration are defining exclusions zones and other mitigations around the National Science Foundation’s current radio astronomy facilities and the planned future antenna locations for the Next Generation Very Large Array. We also are working with our international partners, including the Square Kilometer Array, to present their concerns as well.
The United States continues to be a world leader in both radio astronomy research and engineering innovations. With the explosion of wireless technologies and the growing potential to lease portions of the electromagnetic spectrum for commercial purposes, it is essential that we safeguard our ability to perform basic research. Ground-based astronomy, whether optical or radio, has benefits that cannot be matched by even the most advanced space-based observatories. The recent imaging of a supermassive black hole is just one example of how ground-based radio astronomy facilities provide powerful and unique capabilities.
The NRAO looks forward to future discussions and is confident that the needs of both the research and communications communities can be met and preserved.
Tony Beasley
NRAO Director/AUI VP of Radio Astronomy Operations
14 responses to “NRAO Statement on Starlink and Communication Satellite Constellations”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“The NRAO looks forward to future discussions and is confident that the
needs of both the research and communications communities can be met and
preserved.”
The idea that it’s either ‘one or the other’ is a false narrative that’s gained traction because our political leaders are trying to attract more of our hearts and minds by forcing divisions between ourselves and the people who we interact with on a daily basis. They want us angry and alone. Astronomy can and will live with Near-Earth economic development. Yes as time goes on more and more will go off planet, but that process will take on the order of 100 years to flip the balance between Earth based and space based. I’m already looking at opportunities to use the LEO and MEO constellations to conduct scientific observations of the objects my group studies. With difficulties also come opportunities. However it’s imperative that we communicate with each other and not bunkerize our stances with respect to each others actions and needs.
Given that the coming LEO comsat mega-constellations communicate via narrow spot beams, it shouldn’t be difficult for operators to stay outside the boundaries of radio-quiet zones like the one around Green Bank, WV. Quite a bit easier than for conventional GEOsats, I would think.
Mr. Beasley has certainly set the right tone with this communication. Here’s hoping he, and like-minded peers in the optical astronomy community, can take point on this march to the future instead of the intemperate and entitled characters we’ve mostly been hearing from in recent days.
Astronomy as a community is not going to try to shut down economic development of space.
No they aren’t. But more than a few still seem inclined to try, however ineffectually. A somewhat larger number, seemingly appreciating, however inchoately, that they have no leverage at all in this situation appear to be contenting themselves with the vain hope that LEO megaconstellations all fail as businesses.
What is most grimly amusing about this whole affair is that most of these whiners and complainers seem to have been utterly ignorant of the imminence of LEO comsat constellations until SpaceX actually did its first Starlink launch. It would seem that astronomers in many ways resemble some of their instruments in having quite limited fields of view.
This will make you feel better. From TASS itself. Compromise on this subject is now leftist cannon. The overreactions you were overreacting to were the leftist equiv of how rightists reacted when Obama was elected the first time.
“Leftist cannon,” eh? Was that a Freudian slip?
McDowell at least acknowledges being caught flatfooted and clueless. But at the end he’s still talking wistfully of “global-governance” – as if there is any such thing – and “how we manage the night sky as a resource.” “What you mean we?” as the old joke goes.
My recollection of Obama’s election was that the Right predicted disaster. As the Aussies say, we weren’t wrong.
Sorry dude, the sky is a resource, and we’ve been using it for over 200 years. As for global convergence, and you not knowing what that means. It means the IAU.
I hope you’re right, but I’m not convinced. The Planetary Society, beginning with Carl Sagan, and continuing with Emily Lakdawalla and Billy Nye are decidedly anti-human spaceflight and anti-cislunar economy. Sara Horst, Chanda Prescod Weinstein, Sarah Tuttle, Alex Parker, there is a *very* long list of the planetary science, astronomy, and astrophysics community that would cheer the demise the economic development of space.
It’s easy to not be excited about HSF when not much is done. Most of their opposition comes from the budget HSF eats vs science return. If they really come out against ANY economic development their fan base will leave. The people from the Astro field you hear are people like “The Eagle”. They get bent out of shape when they think someone has stepped on their toes. People like me who have tamed expectations on getting your way in a PURE fashion vs a real world dirty solution usually get our way.
They have to use the entire footprint to get enough customers. If they simply delivered internet to ground stations which then sent it over cable or DSL they could use spot beams. The receivers use phased array to follow the spacecraft they say. A sort of spot beam. Maybe they could turn each spacecraft off over certain areas and the receivers could buffer the signal instead of direct. I guess a phased array transmitter antenna could be programed to steer around certain spots. So good idea.
I wondered what the *radio* astronomy folks thought of this…
As with reactions to any new development by potentially affected parties I’m sure the reactions are normally distributed and range from “No big deal,” to “GAAAAH! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!” The latter contingent is from whom we’ve mostly been hearing lately. I’d like to think, but don’t know for certain, that the centroid of this distribution is located closer to the attitude expressed by Mr. Beasley than to the arrogant childishness that’s been far too much in evidence of late.
WiFi users of these constellations should be taxed to pay for a Moon far side radio telescope. Like that person in Fiji.
Yeah, good luck with that.
A lunar farside radio telescope is only a long-term solution to Earth-origin RF cacophony if one assumes the Moon never grows a significant satellite population of its own. That is already a vain hope as the Chinese placed a relay comsat in L2 halo orbit last year to support its current Chang’e 3 and Yutu 2 lunar farside probes. If America returns to the Moon to stay, perhaps as early as 2024, there will soon be a sizable constellation of comsats, powersats, navsats and all sorts of other sats busily bathing the lunar farside in miniature versions of the Earth’s current RF cacophony.
The nearest place to Earth that is likely to remain satisfactorily man-made RF silent for the next century is Earth-Sun L2 halo orbit. Even there, radio telescopes would have to be backed by Faraday shields. A century or more hence, these instruments would likely need to be re-sited somewhere beyond the Asteroid Belt to find adequate RF quiet conditions. A century beyond that might require another journey outward to the Kuiper Belt or beyond.
Dare I ask whom that “person in Fiji” is?