How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images • Hacker News Board

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#351

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

SiempreViernes wrote: post #119

LatteLazy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? What are they missing? I thought Hubble, JWST etc could do basically everything a ground based one could do only better? Excluding radio telescopes which are huge but not effected by satellites anyway.

Radio astronomy is most definitely going to be affected by all that wireless internet they want to put up there: https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3702/1

Radio astronomy is a prime candidate for putting installations on the other side of the Moon, which is something Starlink is working towards (as its whole point as a business is to fund Starship R&D).

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#352

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

swframe2 wrote: post #316

Since their internet service will generate a lot of money, maybe spacex should just provide very low cost launches of future telescopes. Or maybe spacex should launch their own telescopes in partnership with researchers and sell the service for a low fee. I also hope we tax companies that launch and own satellites to fund a clean up service that de-orbits all the junk before they cause the Kessler syndrome.

> Since their internet service will generate a lot of money, maybe spacex should just provide very low cost launches of future telescopes.

That's exactly what they're doing. Starlink exists to fund Starship R&D, which will translate to much cheaper launch costs for everyone, not just astronomers.

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#353

Post by vanderZwan » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 11:47 PM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #325

astrophysician wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...wow. (1) astronomers are pretty darn aware of everything going on, and it's really shocking as an astronomer to see these sorts of claims. There have been close collaborations with Space X to try to mitigate some issues, but these are partial mitigations and the most important ones are only planned, not implemented. The "successful" mitigations I think you're referring to is their "DarkSat" coating, which is not a…

SpaceX has just implemented sun Visors on the latest batch of satellites, so why aren’t you aware of that? In space infrared detectors are the most effective way of searching for dangerous NEOs, and SpaceX has made them far cheaper to launch. How come you don’t know that? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasem_r...

How about looking at what the username of the person you replied to spells out. Then click on it, look through their comment history and do some homework.

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#354

Post by lutorm » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

This was posted in a deep link but I'm reposting it: SpaceX mitigations in progress: https://www.spacex.com/updates/starlink-update-04-28-2020/

The OIR report, if you bother to actually read it, also details that a) astronomers agree that providing world-wide broadband is a worthy cause, and b) that there is close cooperation between astronomers and at least SpaceX to work out mitigations.

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#355

Post by lutorm » Thu, Aug 27, 2020, 11:58 PM UTC

sfblah wrote: post #348

I appreciate the arguments on both sides of this, but it's hard for me to get past the point that the satellites are temporary infrastructure, whereas Earth-based fixed wireless or fiber/wire lines are fairly permanent. It's hard for me to understand why the solution here is the temporary one. A decade ago I think my opinion would have been different, because technology didn't make offering gigabit bandwidth via wire…

If you think you can competitively install fiber to all the areas that will be served by Starlink, then it seems you should be able to outcompete them. No one's preventing you from giving it a try.

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#356

Post by huonpine » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 12:00 AM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #251

dayjobpork wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless Musk has secretly invented Romulan cloaking technology, being invisible doesn't help when you are trying to look at the stuff behind

What percentage of the night sky will be obscured if Starlink goes to 30,000 satellites? Let me guess, if the visual radius of a one meter satellite 550,000 meters away is (1/X)^2. Thirty thousand would be 1/one trillion, or far less?

Its not just about Starlink though, its about setting a precedent before every company and country starts launching competing constellations. When should we start to care after the first few thousand or after hundred of thousands of eventual satellite's?

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#357

Post by lutorm » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

nikanj wrote: post #84

We paid operators huge sums of money to build fiber internet across the US, but they kept the money instead. Now we're trying with satellites. The whole astronomy problem could be solved if FCC had teeth and forced us to get the fiber connections we already paid for

To my knowledge no one's paying SpaceX to do Starlink at this point in time.

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#358

Post by lutorm » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 12:05 AM UTC

sreevisakh wrote: post #228

Waterluvian wrote: post #185

I'm not expressing a pro or con opinion here, but I'm curious. Did this same conversation happen when we started light polluting the city? Was this why observatories adapted by moving to darker locations? On the surface this seems a wee bit absurd, but I wonder if a case could be made that it's time for more space-based telescopes.

That is exactly what happened. It's clear even to the naked eye - people still freak out when power grids get knocked out at night. They see far more stars and think that's what caused the failure. To be more technical, the EM radiation signals that astronomers are interested in is very faint and barely above the background noise level. This is why they have to use large aperture and long exposure to essentially ampl…

Did you actually read the article? The impacts on research astronomy range from insignificant to significant depending on the application, and some things are harder to mitigate for than others. "Removing the streaks from the image" is exactly one method of mitigation.

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#359

Post by sfblah » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 12:12 AM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #355

sfblah wrote: post #348

I appreciate the arguments on both sides of this, but it's hard for me to get past the point that the satellites are temporary infrastructure, whereas Earth-based fixed wireless or fiber/wire lines are fairly permanent. It's hard for me to understand why the solution here is the temporary one. A decade ago I think my opinion would have been different, because technology didn't make offering gigabit bandwidth via wire…

If you think you can competitively install fiber to all the areas that will be served by Starlink, then it seems you should be able to outcompete them. No one's preventing you from giving it a try.

Well I mentioned Fixed Wireless as well. Also, there's room for government in this. That's like suggesting highways, high-speed rail and airports should all be privately funded. In most cases, societies have chosen to make those projects the purview of the government.

Re: How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images

#360

Post by reitzensteinm » Fri, Aug 28, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

vanderZwan wrote: post #337

reitzensteinm wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I've been to the Sahara desert and it's the most remote place I've ever been. I experienced the gaps in coverage first hand. There are equivalent places in central Australia, but even though I grew up here I haven't been more than a few hours drive away from the coasts. I haven't been to North America. Russia didn't cross my mind, but I haven't been there either. This isn't to say I don't have warped perspect…

I believe you, thank you for engaging with my questions in a civil manner (I can't say the same for the way people initially downvoted my questions, but that isn't your fault of course - I hope it was clear that the "you guys" in my previous comment referred to them).

I think asking why I said Africa and not the specific country or region is fair. Had I traveled there instead, would I have said North America or Alaska? Would I have said Russia or Siberia? I'm not sure.

For what it's worth an initial rush of downvotes (or upvotes) is fairly common on HN; I'd ignore them for the first hour or so. After that you'll probably have a fair idea of the HN consensus (fickle as it is).

People that really care about an issue will sit there and refresh a thread constantly, so in the short term you're mostly knowing what they think about your comment. But they can't vote more than once.

My first comment in this tree was downvoted to -3 within two minutes of posting, but now sits at +40. I actually wasn't sure at first whether it was being downvoted by people for or against Starlink et al. Maybe both.