101–110 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to disagree, but stacking a series of exposures with a sigma-clipped mean (or similar) should still get a nice image.
Exactly. It’s not that hard to remove the satellites. It’s almost easier than whining about it. But whining is more fun.
It reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of the image, making more difficult the detection of faint objects.
We do not need Starlink! It only provides service to 9 Million! People We are a planet with 8 Billion People. Do i want cheap and reliable internet everywhere and perhaps work remote? Yes. Should someone like Musk destroy our look into space for just me and my use case? No.
How many hours are spent looking at the sky compared to Starlink usage?
My wife enjoys sun rises and sun downs.
Culture wise I know plenty of people around me looking up.
How about you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need starlink to get a message out of Puerto Rico. We also don't need starlink as a stepping stone. What we need is food for the planet, resiliance infrastructure, proper health care, stable energy grids.
I sure hope you never have to wonder if your relatives are safe and doing well after they have no way to communicate with you for weeks.
2. As i said, robust infrastructure would fix that too. Fiber under earth, backup energy etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many hours are spent looking at the sky compared to Starlink usage?
Puh i would say a billion to 1? Like i look at the sky very often but i do not use Starlink. My wife enjoys sun rises and sun downs. Culture wise I know plenty of people around me looking up. How about you?
Sun rises and downs is not affected by satellites, due to overwhelming brightness difference. For casual stargazers, light pollution is much more of an obstacle than the satellites. Plus, for half a day on average, the stars not available at all, unlike Starlink or other satellite services
I'm not a Starlink user either, I do like to look at the sky with naked eyes and telescopes, but I do not share the sentiment that it's imperative to keep it "pure" for the sake of whatever. Also, a personal anecdote, satellite spotting is quite fun :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Puh i would say a billion to 1? Like i look at the sky very often but i do not use Starlink. My wife enjoys sun rises and sun downs. Culture wise I know plenty of people around me looking up. How about you?
Are you or people around you do that for hours every night? Is this a deliberate activity, or are you including random quick glances? How often is yours or people's around you sky watching experience actually negatively affected by satellites? Sun rises and downs is not affected by satellites, due to overwhelming brightness difference. For casual stargazers, light pollution is much more of an obstacle than the satell…
I also enjoy doing astrophotography, I want to build my own mirror.
People around me do this too yes.
We do not need Starlink! It only provides service to 9 Million! People We are a planet with 8 Billion People. Do i want cheap and reliable internet everywhere and perhaps work remote? Yes. Should someone like Musk destroy our look into space for just me and my use case? No.
It is obvious that the 9 million current customers are just the beginning of where SpaceX wants to take Starlink access. Easy to imagine Starlink serving 1 billion + customers in the near future.
Probably because a land line has still less latency, doesn't consume that much energy and everyone has either a land line or mobile connection.
When Amazon Leo, Eutelsat, Telesat, Chiense and co enter the market, the margin will go down significanlty. The effort for handling the space and crashes etc. will increase.
Additional to this, my landline is stable. Its stable in heavy rain, with and without snow.
And the worst thing about Starlink and its adoption is the Satelite handoff every 15 seconds. I tried Starlink at my father-in-laws home and i was unable to use MS Teams reliable enough.
To finish Starlink off: it doesn't even properly scale. Right now they need v3 which they are not sending up because of the bandwidth limitation of one satelite. Then they have to route traffic through their satelites to were they have base stations. Now they also need to build basestations everywere together with sending up new satelites every 5 years.
1 billion customers? in that market? in the near future? never. The base stations we have are there, well connected, relativly cheap, very fast, very direct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It’s not that hard to remove the satellites. It’s almost easier than whining about it. But whining is more fun.
It is not hard to remove the satellites, but that is not free. It reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of the image, making more difficult the detection of faint objects.
Compared to the processing already done to get data from astronomical data, yeah, it's essentially free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It’s not that hard to remove the satellites. It’s almost easier than whining about it. But whining is more fun.
It is not hard to remove the satellites, but that is not free. It reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of the image, making more difficult the detection of faint objects.
The SNR degradation isn’t even very much. Noise goes down by 1/sqrt(N) samples. In a stack like this might have 5-40 images depending on how they did it. Typically a satellite will only show up on one of those images for a given pixel. So by excluding that image from the stack that pixel’s noise would go up by a ratio of sqrt(N/(N-1)) which for 5-40 images is between 12% more noise and 1% more noise. Only the pixels with satellite tracks.
True there’s more noise if you remove the satellites. But it’s probably only a few percent noisier, and only in the places where the satellite flew. Add a few more images to the stack and accept that the world is changing.
Hot take: We're in the first stages of building our own Dyson sphere and therefore comets are only useful in the context of capturing them for that purpose. ;)