SpaceX working on fix for Starlink satellites so they don’t disrupt astronomy

Post by adamsea » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

cobookman wrote: post #18

dylan604 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that they didn't would indicate nobody connected the dots. Or that nobody knew who/where to contact someone to raise their concerns. A lot of people will think that if I just had this thought, then it must be pretty obvious so that others will have the same thought as well. No need for further action. Others will just not feel the need to spend their time/effort trying to look up the complaints department.…

It’s not that hard to get in contact. If you cared you could LinkedIn message a SpaceX employee. Tweet at Elon Musk. Connected with nyt or other media who’d love to run such a story. ...etc

Post by chr1 » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

sprash wrote: post #61

chr1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First starlink is better than fiber because it will have lower latency. Second and more important it doesn't destroy astronomy at all, it adds some small temporary inconvenience for some types of observations, but at the same time makes space launches cheaper allowing more space telescopes, which is going to help astronomy greatly. Your reaction would be totally justified if starlink was really disrupting astronomy,…

> First starlink is better than fiber because it will have lower latency. Nobody except some HF-Traders cares. > Your reaction would be totally justified if starlink was really disrupting astronomy The article is literally about even SpaceX admitting that there is a huge problem.

Post by throwaway2048 » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 6:18 PM UTC

chr1 wrote: post #63

throwaway2048 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there is a difference between things that could maybe happen, and things that are almost certainly going to happen. Especially when the "maybe" is relying on the largesse of somebody else to fix the problem they created. History is full of disasters and situations where that absolutely does not work out. Pinning the near-entire future of astronomical observation on Musk's good will is ridiculous.

First it doesn't depend on Musk's good will at all. It depends on companies making profit by selling space launches. Second "the near-entire future of astronomical observation" is a gross exaggeration, the satellites only add a bit of inconvenience, which is a much smaller issue, than existing issues like light pollution from the cities. The benefits of starlink, and the slight inconvenience for astronomers are simpl…

Post by dang » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 6:26 PM UTC

SEJeff wrote: post #58

ceejayoz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.fws.gov/international/travel-and-trade/ivory-ban... > On July 6, 2016, a near-total ban on commercial trade in African elephant ivory went into effect in the United States. Hard to make a profit when you're shut down by the government.

He’s just trying to build up a strawman to attack. Typical HN troll.

Post by krastanov » Sun, Dec 08, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

downrightmike wrote: post #57

dylan604 wrote: post #6

“No one thought of this,” she said. “We didn’t think of it. The astronomy community didn’t think of it.” I really have trouble believing that nobody mentioned adding thousands of satellites would go unnoticed. It is damn near impossible to take any image of the night sky without having a satellite streak through the frame. I have plenty of images with multiple satellites visible at the same time. In wide angle timela…

Software should be able to account for this. If photoshop can remove people from photos, why can't astronomy software remove satellites? Orbit is already pretty cluttered and we can't remove much that gets stuck up there already.