I feel like this could be solved with a simple requirement that anyone launching anything shiny into LEO has to help fund space based telescopes. They're better anyway and we can have the best of all worlds that way...
Classic capitalism management. If a market change creates negative effects on society, create a tax to mitigate negative effects
How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
51–60 of 395 posts
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#52The article covers the mitigations already in place and how they only partially resolve the issue. These satellites are low, bright (at dawn/dusk) and very soon to be incredibly numerous. Yes, it is possible for data workflows to post-process these streaks away, but not all configurations allow this, and whereas previous intrusions were somewhat rare and could be ignored that simply won't be the case due to three com…
I personally believe that pervasive high speed internet even in remote locations will do more for humanity than the scientific cost of these satellites. However, this conversation has basically been skipped over. Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. The constellations are being launched, and there's zero chance of shutting them down once they're serving a commercial role. Considering the abundant red tape in the modern…
I've had faster Internet than the average Starlink speedtest says, in rural Romania, at the foot of a mountain, wild bears and all: https://twitter.com/q3k/status/1172621386977861632 . Internet access in rural areas is pretty much a solved problem, it just now hinges on enough of a societal push to apply this solution where needed.
Starlink is yet another SV-style attempt to solve (US) societal problems by blindly applying technology. Except this time, this also affects other countries, and we're furious.
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#53Living in a city, I didn't understand how big a deal this was until I got a view of the clear night sky in a less populated area recently. The satellites are already visible by eye everywhere, and there are only 655 Starlink satellites. There's approval for 12000, and SpaceX is seeking approval for 30000! If they're all going to be this reflective, satellites will be the main thing we see in the night sky a few years…
It's not as big a deal as you think. The satellites are only visible to the naked eye for a few weeks after launch as they travel to their final orbits; after that they are too dim to see. The sky will not appear different than it does now to the naked eye; you will never see thousands of satellites. Most of the bright satellites you see now have been there for many years already; Starlink will not be visible like th…
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#54The article covers the mitigations already in place and how they only partially resolve the issue. These satellites are low, bright (at dawn/dusk) and very soon to be incredibly numerous. Yes, it is possible for data workflows to post-process these streaks away, but not all configurations allow this, and whereas previous intrusions were somewhat rare and could be ignored that simply won't be the case due to three com…
Isn't the solution more satellites for astronomy? In fact, couldn't the constellation of commercial satellites be used to make a massive distributed hubble telescope?
And even with free launches space telescopes are still extremely expensive, since the telescope and all it's instruments has to work in space without any tweaking or possibility for upgrades. Ground based telescopes are used for decades and upgraded with newer instruments over time.
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#55The article covers the mitigations already in place and how they only partially resolve the issue. These satellites are low, bright (at dawn/dusk) and very soon to be incredibly numerous. Yes, it is possible for data workflows to post-process these streaks away, but not all configurations allow this, and whereas previous intrusions were somewhat rare and could be ignored that simply won't be the case due to three com…
Why do astronomers own the skies? I don't remember when they got title to that property.
Space is a shared resource. One use shouldn't infringe on another.
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#56The article covers the mitigations already in place and how they only partially resolve the issue. These satellites are low, bright (at dawn/dusk) and very soon to be incredibly numerous. Yes, it is possible for data workflows to post-process these streaks away, but not all configurations allow this, and whereas previous intrusions were somewhat rare and could be ignored that simply won't be the case due to three com…
Why do astronomers own the skies? I don't remember when they got title to that property.
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not as big a deal as you think. The satellites are only visible to the naked eye for a few weeks after launch as they travel to their final orbits; after that they are too dim to see. The sky will not appear different than it does now to the naked eye; you will never see thousands of satellites. Most of the bright satellites you see now have been there for many years already; Starlink will not be visible like th…
Maybe, but with tens of thousands of satellites, each with a life expectancy of about 3-5 years then Space X will have to re-fill the constellation constantly.
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#58The article covers the mitigations already in place and how they only partially resolve the issue. These satellites are low, bright (at dawn/dusk) and very soon to be incredibly numerous. Yes, it is possible for data workflows to post-process these streaks away, but not all configurations allow this, and whereas previous intrusions were somewhat rare and could be ignored that simply won't be the case due to three com…
Isn't the solution more satellites for astronomy? In fact, couldn't the constellation of commercial satellites be used to make a massive distributed hubble telescope?
Space telescopes offer advantages for particular types of observations, but there are many types of observations for which ground-based telescopes are superior. The basic advantages that ground-based telescopes have are:
* Larger collecting area, which means more photons collected, which means you can see fainter objects.
* With adaptive optics, ground-based telescopes can actually achieve better resolution than space telescopes over small fields of view.
* Ground-based telescopes are far easier to maintain and upgrade.
* Much looser weight, size, radiation-hardening requirements mean that you can do things on the ground that would just be unthinkable in space. You can attach things like massive spectrometers to ground-based telescopes, without having to worry nearly as much about form factor and weight, or whether radiation will damage your electronics.
The advantages that space telescopes have are:
* No weather to deal with.
* You can observe UV and IR wavelengths which the Earth's atmosphere absorbs or emits in - which is extremely difficult/impossible from the ground.
* You can get high resolution over large fields of view. However, you can't reach the same resolution on small fields of view, because ground-based telescopes with a large aperture + adaptive optics will beat you there.
Basically, at any fixed budget, you will be able to build a much larger, more complex instrument on the ground. You only go to space when there's a compelling technical reason to do so (e.g., you need to observe UV light).
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#59Living in a city, I didn't understand how big a deal this was until I got a view of the clear night sky in a less populated area recently. The satellites are already visible by eye everywhere, and there are only 655 Starlink satellites. There's approval for 12000, and SpaceX is seeking approval for 30000! If they're all going to be this reflective, satellites will be the main thing we see in the night sky a few years…
It's not as big a deal as you think. The satellites are only visible to the naked eye for a few weeks after launch as they travel to their final orbits; after that they are too dim to see. The sky will not appear different than it does now to the naked eye; you will never see thousands of satellites. Most of the bright satellites you see now have been there for many years already; Starlink will not be visible like th…
See for example this guy who tried to model this for the lower number of 12000: https://twitter.com/Alex_Parker/status/1132335640605945856
Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images
#60The article covers the mitigations already in place and how they only partially resolve the issue. These satellites are low, bright (at dawn/dusk) and very soon to be incredibly numerous. Yes, it is possible for data workflows to post-process these streaks away, but not all configurations allow this, and whereas previous intrusions were somewhat rare and could be ignored that simply won't be the case due to three com…
Why do astronomers own the skies? I don't remember when they got title to that property.