impact to their business to those who say it may adversely affect specific activities like astrophotography. For Alexander, this time is “not in the near future”, but he suspects that “there will come a time where if the skies are allowed to become more busy, our type of visual and amateur-astrophotography evenings will be negatively impacted by too many visible satellites.” Singer wrote that while he didn’t think that satellites will impact his visual stargazing programs, he expected that “they will become more and more of a nuisance with imaging.” Danemann suggested that the potential of programs like Starlink to bring broadband internet into remote areas where astrotourism often takes place “might even be positive” for her business. And Johns raised the possibility of a link between casual attitudes among the public regarding the visual pollution of the night sky represented by satellites and a lack of concern for sources of terrestrial light pollution as they may affect the accessibility of the night sky. “The clear and present danger is a lack of joined-up thinking around dark skies as an asset beyond astrotourism leading to ill-conceived lighting schemes,” wrote Johns. She further mentioned that Kielder Observatory is developing a “Dark Skies NE” plan, referring to the northeast of England, to address this concern on a regional basis.
The attitudes of these astrotourism professionals largely mirror those of amateur astronomers, astrophotographers, and general supporters of dark-skies initiatives. They expressed concern for the future accessibility of the night sky, although none specifically cited potential negative effects on their businesses as a reason for concern. Some argued for new regulations, or strengthening of existing regulations, having to do with the use of near-Earth space. Singer wrote that “more regulations are necessary to prevent abuses of the use of low-earth and mid-earth orbits for satellites,” while Alexander opined that “billionaires shouldn't be able to just launch what the heck they like, when they like, in some kind of space one-upmanship. There needs to be more regulation.”
Frank pointed out that the increasing commercialization of near-Earth space “is against the common good” associated with the accessibility of the natural night sky. Danemann further suggested that the real harm of large numbers of satellites may be in simply redirecting the gaze of viewers from the natural to the artificial: “A night sky full of satellites would direct visitor interest to the space close to Earth, thus harming the exposure to the vast Universe with its life-changing eternity aspect.”
Our limited survey of a few astrotourism professionals in the US and Europe points to something of a double-edged sword in how large satellite constellations affect the nature of their business: while the public is excited to see satellites swarming about overhead, that phenomenon can also detract from the experience of viewing the wonders of a dark night sky. It may motivate some customers while alienating others. Astrotourism professionals seem to be situated along the sidelines of the public debate about the issue of satellite constellations, cautiously observing developments that may influence their businesses for better or worse and whose full ramifications are not yet known.
What is the potential for loss of astrotourism revenue as night skies become brighter? There are no published data on astrotourism potential as a function of night sky conditions, although it seems anecdotally that pristine night skies are not a precondition for running a successful astrotourism enterprise. Accessibility of the resource is an important concern based on the premise that certain tourists are willing to travel across the world and spend significantly to see “pristine” night skies; others would be willing to stay closer to home and spend less on each visit but might choose to visit more often.
