Then your talking bollocks. Astronomers have spent decades working out how to reduce the impact of satellites.
But it always comes at a cost, either you have to look at object longer to get the same quality or you accept lower quality data for the same observing time. Either way your reducing the effectiveness of the observations.
Is the infrastructure being built worth it? I don't know but why is the astronomers paying the cost and not the multi billionaires funding these things? Why do they get to externalise their costs on everyone else over what is a shared resource (space)? As a non-american I've got no say in the regulations that do and do not get applied to things like spacex, yet I pay the cost of loss to the shared resource that is the night sky.
On the flip side, why should astronomers get to monopolize that shared resource? What about the externalities they generate?
All human activities create tradeoffs. Here it's the tradeoff between astronomy and commercial and military utility. Prioritizing astronomers' interests over that of the rest of those interested in developing space generated its own costs just as surely as these constellations would (if developed as predicted, a dubious notion as already explored earlier in the thread). Do you also expect the astronomers to pay for those costs as you expect the constellation operators to pay for the astronomers' costs?
You might say that they have more of a right to access because they were there first. I would counter that the locking down of that space is an externality no matter when it occurred.
