Russian startup wants to put ads in low-Earth orbit to ruin the sky for everybody

January 16, 2019Will there be no end to people trying to muck up the night sky? Around this time last year it was a disco ball sent into low-Earth orbit. Now a Russian startup has had the colossally dense idea of sticking beaming billboards up there, to shine advertising back down to Earth.

Putting aside the fact that advertising is already ubiquitous, the notion of adding a significant source of light pollution to the night sky has astronomers – professional and amateur alike – fuming.

The startup is called StartRocket, and it hopes to use an array of tiny cubesats to create a programmable display in the night sky.

Orbiting at a low-Earth altitude of 400-500 kilometres (248-310 miles), according to the startup’s website, these satellites would each bear a collapsible sail that is capable of reflecting the light of the Sun to form a single pixel.

Because it would be dependent on the Sun, it would only be able to display at dawn and dusk.

All up, the “billboard” would have an area of 50 square kilometres (19 square miles). This Orbital Display, as it is being called, could then be programmed to display logos to people around the globe, for 6-minute intervals, around 3 or 4 times a day – theoretically, at least.

“We are ruled by brands and events,” project leader Vlad Sitnikov told Futurism.

“The Super Bowl, Coca Cola, Brexit, the Olympics, Mercedes, FIFA, Supreme and the Mexican wall. The economy is the blood system of society. Entertainment and advertising are at its heart.

“We will live in space, and humankind will start delivering its culture to space. The more professional and experienced pioneers will make it better for everyone.”

But, as the response indicates, “better” is a matter of opinion, mainly because of the light pollution the Orbital Display would generate.

“It’s a threat to the ability to do astronomical research from the ground,” astronomer John Barentine of the International Dark Sky Association told Astronomy.com. “Every one of those moving blips of light in the night sky is something that can interfere with our ability to collect photons from astronomical sources.”

In the short term, the system would increase the number of satellites in space, which in turn increases the risk of collision.

But it is worth noting that, while space junk is a pretty big problem, the Orbital Display wouldn’t add to it long-term. At the chosen altitude, the satellites’ orbit would decay in a year or so, hopefully burning up harmlessly on reentry as they returned to Earth.

But the light pollution issue isn’t a small one. And we’re not sure Sitnokov’s suggestion to “do peeing or making your coffee” while the display is on is the most helpful one, given how time-sensitive astronomical observations can be.

For no reason at all, here’s what it looks like when a satellite goes through Hubble’s field of view whilst you are trying to image something in the distant solar system. pic.twitter.com/eLWR1ncdqx
— Alex Parker (@Alex_Parker) January 25, 2018

The company isn’t the only one trying to send wacky things into low-Earth orbit. Take China’s weird artificial Moon to serve as a replacement for streetlights, one of the strangest energy-saving measures we think we’ve ever heard.

Or a Japanese proposal to launch satellites that will rain down artificial meteor showers, so you don’t have to sit around waiting for a real one.

Nevertheless, none have been solidified at this stage – not these other proposals, nor the Orbital Display.

The system has yet to be tested (the startup has plans to do so as early as this year), has yet to be funded, and has yet to be approved according to local and international laws and regulations.

The team says that they have managed to overcome the technical challenges associated with flying an array of satellites in formation, and the drag introduced by the sails; however, that remains to be seen.

As to whether it can meet space regulations – well, those are significantly outdated, so there’s a good chance that it could.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the company is vastly exaggerating its technical prowess.

This article was originally published by Sciencealert.com. Read the original article here.

I was looking for over two decades at the 18", originally the one they now call the Classic then changed my desire to the ultra compact (UC) when that came out. In high school I ground my own 8" mirror as a project for senior astronomy class. I finished the whole package after graduating and used that for almost four decades. I gave it away when we moved to FL thinking the skies would be no good d/t the humidity since central PA skies were lousy when it was "clear" but high humidity they were hazy.

I thought occasionally about the 20" but wanted the UC design. Then I thought about the 22" but I didn't want to have to use a step ladder for much of the viewing. I've gone through almost all the Messier objects when using it. I just wish there was less light pollution where I use it but it is within walking distance from my house.

It took me about a half hour to get everything packed into my car and same to get out and another 20 minutes to set up then half an hour to drive to somewhere with less light pollution. All in for packing and traveling I figure a minimum of 2 hours shot, granted the first hour can be done before sunset but you aren't always sure what the night sky will look like until the sunsets. With the shroud the light itself doesn't make much difference for viewing but makes it difficult for me to spot the typical nightsky landmarks to align the scope to. It has the Tel-rad which took me a little time getting used to but I'm ok with it as opposed to the old cross hairs finder scope I had.

But if you don't have one, the portability isn't as good as their videos make it appear. The mirror box base alone weighs almost 100 lbs and putting it into the back of my BMW X5 strains my back.

You might want to be cautious which dob you buy if you are planning to use it near salt water. I remember reading some of the details about a Mak-Cas that said NOT to use it if you were near a body of saltwater - just something to think about.

I know it’s heavy. My buddy uses a small trailer for his 22. UC (Ultra Compact) I couldn’t remember the name.

You wouldn’t happen to be in the Tampa area? The St Pete Astronomy Club is a GREAT group. They are having a Star party at Dade City in about 2 weeks. Not the darkest skies, but, it’s always fun!

One other thing. Look into the Astronomical Leagues Viewing Clubs. Specially the Urban Astronomy one. 100 items that you can see in light polluted skies. (If you can see the Milky Way in any form, it’s too dark). It has Messier objects (including galaxies), clusters, nebula, and multiple star systems. It will keep you busy as you can’t use goto or digital circles to find them to qualify.

I did this with my 10” Newt a few years ago in my back yard (when we had one). I had 2 lights overhanging my back yard. One I could block by using a tree, the other with a beach umbrella on a tall poll. It gave me about 20 sq feet of shadow.

As for the boat, any scope I get will have to fit in a water proof toolbox. We’ve lived aboard for 4 years now and know what and what not to leave out! :D Besides, I live in coastal Georgia, it’s salty everywhere. We use to go out on the pier at the beach and do “guerilla astronomy”, no problems with salt there either and we were over the waves.

Several years we did an Astronomy Day program out on the pier. We won the competition all of those years, going up against the Hayden Planetarium and the nations of Ireland and Iran. It can be done.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.