I suspect that the long term answer may be having to use extraterrestrial telescopes in more isolated places. The cost of clamping down on traffic around Earth is going to increase as the number of potential applications for radio on Earth increases and the amount of stuff flying around in space increases. It costs more to put a telescope in space, but that cost isn't tied to the growth of radio devices.
Off the top of my head, precedent:
-
We did it with the James Webb Space Telescope.
-
The Green Bank Telescope was put in an area without a lot of radio transmitters (albeit still on Earth's surface).
-
Optical telescopes are placed in remote areas, not in or near cities, which have all sorts of sources emitting light.
Maybe it's possible to keep radio telescopes on Earth, have more sensors and by combining data from them, identify and isolate Earth satellites and strip stuff from them out of the signal. But if there's a fundamental incompatibility between satellites and radio telescopes, my bet is that eventually, it's radio telescopes that are going to have to move.
Grigg noted these unintended emissions might come from onboard electronics. "Because β¦ they're not part of an intentional signal, astronomers can't easily predict them or filter them out," he said.
Well, they can't filter them out without more sensor data, at any rate.