> If your receiver is so sensitive it's intolerant of stray EMI from a circuit board in outer space [...]

Well, that's what is required to receive a weak signal from beyond that circuit board, from outer space.

> there's no reasonable way to adapt to that

You'd be surprised what becomes reasonable and possible once a requirement is set.

> it's unreasonable to ask an entire planet to turn into a radio-quiet zone.

Noone is asking that.

It's reasonable to require radio interference of a device to stay within defined boundaries. This is the case in all other industries as well, why shouldn't it suddenly apply for a fleet of satellites which blast radio signals from outer space to earth?

▲

perihelions 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> "This is the case in all other industries as well,"

No; it really isn't. There's no industry on the planet where "must accept" regulations are set by the world's most sensitive physics experiments.

Do we set acoustic noise regulations by what a LIGO interferometer can measure? Of course not. We'd have to outlaw the mechanical engine were it so. Regress to a medieval society of horse people (very small horses with noise-absorbing horseshoes).

Do we regulate nuclear power by what astrophysical neutrino detectors perceive? Also, no. Even though they see fission reactors on the other side of the planet, and it is noise to them.

The prior art is we that set noise regulations by what interferes with actual humans in their actual day-to-day functioning; and we set RF regulations by what interferes with the functioning of other circuits useful to humans. Not exotic physics experiments. This is a new thing to ask; and it is bold.

	▲	rickdeckard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> There's no industry on the planet where "must accept" regulations are set by the world's most sensitive physics experiments. The criteria is not industry vs. "world's most sensitive physics experiments", it's industry vs. "agreed activity for public/societal benefit". And there are many examples for it. We regulate light/noise and other pollution in consideration of wildlife and plants, we regulate nuclear waste disposal considering our responsibilities to the greater public good. We could also not regulate anything with regards to wildlife and plants, there is no immediate economic benefit to preserve all variants of rhinos, tigers, reptiles etc., we could kill all plants except the most resilient one, it's much more economic to maintain them in long-term then. We could also globally agree to dispose all nuclear waste in one place on earth and just never go there again. Actually we could disband entities like the EPA, because we can figure out solutions to each environmental impact on-demand if there's enough incentive for it. But we don't, because there is (or used to be) consensus that there are also goals beyond short-term economic growth. Areas of interest for greater society, for mankind if you will.

▲

generalizations 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> You'd be surprised what becomes reasonable and possible once a requirement is set.

In that case, I'm not sure why you're concerned. Let's flip this around: set up our regulations to loosen our EMI radiation restrictions & facilitate our satellites and space exploration. According to your logic, that should be perfectly reasonable to astronomers, if that's what the regulations say, and it should be possible for them to adapt to that.

If that's not what you meant, then astronomy needs to make some concessions.

▲

rickdeckard 2 days ago | parent [-]

Sure, that's also a solution. The public then needs to provide more taxpayer funding to perform such research in orbit of earth. Whatever is preferable in the larger picture of public/corporate interest...

▲

generalizations 2 days ago | parent [-]

That’s a very different proposal- unless you’re intending to amend your previous statement to:

“You'd be surprised what becomes reasonable and possible once a requirement is set [and additional funding is allocated to overcome the negative consequences of said requirement]”

▲

rickdeckard 2 days ago | parent [-]

No need to amend, it's the same, the required funding is a factor to determine how reasonable an investment is. For both parties.

It is then up to the taxpayer to define whether the path of performing astronomy research in orbit of earth to preserve a for-profit business-model is more reasonable than defining regulation which allows such research to be performed on earth for a fraction of the cost (but may require for-profit companies to further invest in R&D to comply or re-evaluate their business model).

It's that simple. Astronomy won't be able to provide immediate ROI or a sales-plan of increased revenue to offset the cost-increase when researching in orbit. So if that's the only criteria, then such research is a futile activity and will be stopped.

▲

jacquesm 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Even this assumes the rest of the world agrees to what is essentially a US centric thing.

	▲	rickdeckard 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, but hear me out: What is "US-centric" here? Astronomy research?, Radio spectrum?, LOE?, Starlink operations? All of this is global. In the end it'll be about geopolitics, although it should be a field that urgently requires global governance and consensus. Next time it could be interference between Starlink vs. a Chinese for-profit. It would be good if there's a commonly agreed way of handling such matters in place...

▲

generalizations 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

If astronomy is not able to cope with additional regulation without additional funding, then for-profit companies should not be expected to do so either. It's that simple.

> Astronomy won't be able to provide immediate ROI or a sales-plan of increased revenue to offset the cost-increase when researching in orbit.

That's too bad. I was under the impression that "You'd be surprised what becomes reasonable and possible once a requirement is set."

▲

rickdeckard 2 days ago | parent [-]

> If astronomy is not able to cope with additional regulation without additional funding, then for-profit companies should not be expected to do so either. It's that simple

So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field.

And for-profit companies who later join to compete with them? They should, because it's not "additional"? Or also not, to ensure a competitive market?

So basically no regulation of any kind shall happen, because companies should not be expected to cope with new regulation if it incurs additional effort for them.

Congrats.

	▲	throw10920 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field. That is not what they said. That's an extremely bad-faith statement that's not even a "misinterpretation", because that implies that there is a valid interpretation, and there isn't - you just made up something completely different and claimed that they said it. You're really not helping your argument here if you have to resort to lying about other peoples' words in order to try to defend your positions.
	▲	generalizations 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> So your belief is that for-profit companies should not be required to comply to regulation put in place after they start business in any field. Interesting that was your takeaway, when all I actually said was "no double standards pls". (i.e., hold astronomy and for-profits to the same standard, insofar that they have to just 'deal with it' when new regulation shows up - or not.)