Kessler syndrome doesn’t apply because the orbits are too low to be stable. They have a finite shelf life before they deorbit, after which they’ll burn in the atmosphere. Admittedly, the light pollution is a real problem, but one which should be solved by building more orbital telescopes, not by avoiding building orbital infrastructure.
Do you realize the cost of these things? And how much can be achieved with normal telescopes for a fraction of this cost? It’s like saying we won’t build bridges anymore because we have planes.
Kessler syndrome does still apply. There could be runaway collisions and impassable debris in low earth orbit for 5-10 years before enough of it burns up, putting all that metal into the atmosphere.
Kessler syndrome doesn’t apply because the orbits are too low to be stable. They have a finite shelf life before they deorbit, after which they’ll burn in the atmosphere. Admittedly, the light pollution is a real problem, but one which should be solved by building more orbital telescopes, not by avoiding building orbital infrastructure.
“building orbital telescopes”
Do you realize the cost of these things? And how much can be achieved with normal telescopes for a fraction of this cost? It’s like saying we won’t build bridges anymore because we have planes.
E: grammar, a little bit
Orbital telescopes are also far more powerful and useful than terrestrial telescopes, because they don’t need to look through the atmosphere.
Kessler syndrome does still apply. There could be runaway collisions and impassable debris in low earth orbit for 5-10 years before enough of it burns up, putting all that metal into the atmosphere.