Alejandro Sánchez de Miguel
EMERGIA post-doctoral research in the Sky Quality Office
Regarding: 'Aggregate effects of proliferating low-Earth-orbit objects and implications for astronomical data lost in the noise': "In general, [this research] is a continuation of previous work and at the moment there is nothing to suggest that it is not correct.
"Overall, [this research] is a continuation of previous work and at the moment there is nothing to suggest that it is not correct. Independent evidence, such as the paper published a few months ago in the journal Science by [Christopher] Kyba, points in the same direction.
The most important limitation is the lack of specially designed experiments to measure sky brightness at observatories at this level of detail.
Regarding: 'A call for scientists to halt the spoiling of the night sky with artificial light and satellites'.
"In principle, and as recently discussed in a paper by the Spanish Association of Aeronautic and Space Law, both terrestrial and space light pollution fall within the scope of application of the [Convention] on Transboundary [Air] Pollution.
Therefore, it would be possible to hold accountable the countries that are launching the mega constellations that signed that treaty. That would only be efficient for nations like the US and the UK, but perhaps not for China [which has not signed the convention].
Regarding the limitations on the use of LEDs, from my point of view, the statement that either a limit is placed on emissions or light pollution will not be reduced is correct. In Spain, since 2007, there is an obligation for administrations to reduce light pollution, but this is totally ignored.
Another interesting aspect is that astronomers' attention is drawn to it. But in general, [many] professional astronomers (contrary to what the majority of the population may think) do not care about light pollution because it does not affect them, as much of the research is not done from the ground or in the visible range.