> Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically permanently, a ring or string of lights in the sky, unwittingly, just because of some billionaire?
There are upsides also.
> You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them.
You could for example not collect from the relevant photosites during transit, we're not using photographic plates anymore. This is not some sort of insurmountable problem, I'm not claiming it's not a problem, but it is not an astronomy ruining problem.
As an indirect result of starlink we have also vastly decreased the cost to put an telescope in space.
> That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes.
You absolutely can't see them in the earth's umbra, they're only 500km high, the umbra represents a significant portion of the sky.
> You absolutely can't see them in the earth's penumbra
I have seen them with my own eyes and they've been filmed. It's just not correct. It's particularly visible when the sun is hitting them. You can find several photos and videos of them from the ground.
There are upsides also.
> You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them.
You could for example not collect from the relevant photosites during transit, we're not using photographic plates anymore. This is not some sort of insurmountable problem, I'm not claiming it's not a problem, but it is not an astronomy ruining problem. As an indirect result of starlink we have also vastly decreased the cost to put an telescope in space.
> That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes.
You absolutely can't see them in the earth's umbra, they're only 500km high, the umbra represents a significant portion of the sky.