According to Ars Technica, a new analysis by three NASA astronomers—Alejandro Borlaff, Pamela Marcum, and Steve Howell—warns that the massive expansion of satellite constellations will severely impact future space telescopes. They estimate that if all planned constellations, like a fully built-out Starlink, launch, there will be roughly 550,000 satellites in orbit within a decade. For upcoming observatories, this means satellite photobombs in nearly every image: the study projects an average of 92 streaks per exposure for China’s low-orbit Xuntian telescope and 69 for the ESA’s ARRAKIHS mission. Even the Hubble Space Telescope, which currently has satellite tracks in over 4% of its recent images, would see that rate jump, with over a third of its images affected. The problem, previously focused on ground-based astronomy, is now clearly a crisis for orbital hardware too.
Why Space Isn’t a Sanctuary
Here’s the thing: a lot of us figured putting telescopes in orbit was the ultimate end-run around light pollution and atmospheric distortion. And for stuff like the James Webb, parked way out at Lagrange Point 2, it still is. But most space telescopes, for practical and budgetary reasons, orbit Earth. They’re not *that* high up. So when companies plan to blanket low-Earth orbit with half a million satellites, there’s nowhere to hide. The study looked at specific missions like NASA’s SPHEREx and found their vulnerability depends on altitude, field of view, and exposure time. A telescope like Xuntian, which needs to dock with China’s space station, is stuck in a low orbit, right in the thick of the coming traffic jam. It’s basically trying to do delicate astronomy from the middle of a freeway.
The Worst Kind of Catch-22
And the solutions? They’re grim, and some fixes for ground-based telescopes actually make it worse up there. Right now, a best practice is to orient satellites to minimize reflections toward Earth. Sounds good, right? But that same orientation *increases* the chance they’ll shine a blinding reflection right at a space telescope looking the other way. Their solar panels are also pointed sunward, making them maximally reflective to observatories pointed away from the sun. It’s a no-win scenario. You can’t just avoid the horizon either, because surveys looking for near-Earth asteroids *have* to look there. Longer exposures, which are crucial for faint objects, just increase the odds a satellite will saunter through the frame.
Is There Any Way Out?
The researchers’ best, and really only, proposal is to designate specific, limited orbital layers for these constellations—preferably lower ones. Lower orbits mean more atmospheric drag, so satellites decay and burn up faster. That’s great for reducing long-term space junk, but it means constellation operators have to constantly launch replacements. Do you think they’ll accept shorter satellite lifespans and higher costs to protect astronomy? I’m skeptical. The study in *Nature* argues it’s “critical” for sustainable space use. But without serious international regulation, which seems unlikely, we’re headed for a future where our view of the cosmos from Earth orbit is permanently criss-crossed with artificial streaks. We’re solving global communication, sure, but at what cost to pure science? The window for clear, unobstructed observation from near-Earth might be closing faster than we thought.
