OP said "scientific advancement has suffered from the light pollution," past tense. Your source explores a "potentially large rise in global sky brightness," and an "expected...rapid rise in night sky brightness."
These are not risks to be ignored. But we haven't even observed or quantified them, which is the first step to weighing mitigation options. (Which could be physical, e.g. lowering satellite reflectivity. Or geographic, putting more observatories are higher latitudes. Or even statistical, by launching space-based calibration telescopes, or building more array-based observatories.)
This paper shows how in 2023 scientists were already annoyed by this, that they had to accommodate this into their observations, and adjust their measurements accordingly. Suffered (past tense) may be hyperbolic, but it isn’t untrue either.
This 2023 paper is also issuing a warning, that if this continues without mitigation, ground based astronomy will be affected. They have the calculations to prove that. What they are particularly concerned about is detecting faint objects inside the radio wave spectrum will be impossible because it will be lost in noise.
Now 2 years have passed since this paper was published, and we still don’t have mitigations for ground based radio astronomy. I seriously doubt we will ever have one. And that the predictions of worse astronomy will become true, externalized into a type of internet you could have gotten with traditional cable, fiber optics, or a 5G radio tower.
EDIT:
> But we haven't even observed or quantified them, which is the first step to weighing mitigation options.
The paper I cited does that. In the abstract they say:
> We present calculations of the potentially large rise in global sky brightness from space objects in low Earth orbit, including qualitative and quantitative assessments of how professional astronomy may be affected.
and inside the paper they devote a whole chapter (chapter 5) to possible mitigations which is titled:
They have calculations that show this is how our models play out.
> What they are particularly concerned about is detecting faint objects inside the radio wave spectrum will be impossible because it will be lost in noise
Could become. They're not talking about mitigation because we haven't observed the problem yet.
> Now 2 years have passed since this paper was published, and we still don’t have mitigations for ground based radio astronomy
Again, where is the "scientific advancement" that "has suffered"?
You wanted to see the computations, I provided you with them and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you responded by casting doubt on their models. This doesn’t strike me as arguing in good faith. But very well, 5th on my list of the same search term gave me this:
Vera C. Rubin Observatory – Impact of Satellite Constellations
The Vera Rubin Observatory came online only this June, but they were complaining about Starlink already last year, and provided preliminary observation how they affected their observations, and how they plan on mitigating it.
Both the 2023 paper and the Vera Rubin Observatory statement call for a set of policies to mitigate the effect of these satellites. However policymakers have not enacted any of these other then some NSF science grants to study potential solution (I don‘t know whether or not they were defunded by DOGE; although if they were, that would seem like a criminal conflict of interest). And I have my reservations about the willingness of governments in the world to come together and set the universal regulatory framework required to enforce these proposed mitigations.
Note that increased exposure time required because of these satellites will affect the number of available operations, which in turn will decrease the amount of astronomy done with this telescope. I want to note especially the conclusion:
> Overall, large numbers of bright satellites — and the necessary steps to avoid, identify, and otherwise mitigate them — will impact the ability of LSST to discover the unexpected.
When you are disputing this you are disputing top engineers and scientists in astronomy. You better have a good reason for that (other then protecting the wealth of billionaires).
> You wanted to see the computations, I provided you with them
No, you didn’t. I asked for evidence this had happened. I read the ‘23 paper two years ago. It’s neat. But it’s a model. We don’t have great model parameters for high-atmosphere nanoparticles. We also have great surveillance of the ozone layer, and aren’t seeing damage.
> other then some NSF science grants to study potential solution
Yeah, I agree with this. (It may have been DOGE’d.)
We need to know what we’re up against. We need to know if it’s a problem that call for a pause, or a mandate that aluminum structures to transitioned to steel and carbon, or if the problem goes away as satellites get bigger and burn up less.
> When you are disputing this you are disputing top engineers and scientists in astronomy
I really am not. I’m taking them at their word that this is a potential problem. Again, if you have evidence this is currently a problem, the language I originally objected to, I’d love to see it.
The scientists and engineers are raising the alarm that this will become an issue if nothing is done, we should not simply ignore them until they are proven right, like we are doing to climate scientists. So much damage can be prevented.
Then it should be easy to cite. Astronomers have complained. But I haven't seen anyone link that to output, including the complaining astronomers.