121–130 of 136 posts
"Stitching together 343 distinct photos," I don't doubt that this is a real problem for astronomers and photographers, but I feel like if you had to work that hard, it doesn't really make your case.
These photos are taken in pitch-black darkness. You need to take a lot of exposures in order to get the data necessary to even see anything.
It is so polluted you need professional camera gear and processing of hundreds of photos together in order to show it. Get real. Internet access for poor, remote rural areas across the global is more important than convenient timelapse photography.
a) You can take these photos with a smart phone. b) In Australia we are rolling out fibre to rural areas and are testing 10Gb plans. Starlink will never come close to those speeds.
At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful. In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me a…
You acknowledge the existence of things blocking , and can't imagine that there are people who want to see ? I feel like when is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragm…
Sorry, but the ship has sailed. Fix your problems in software maybe.
> - Astronomers / enthusiasts
Every Starship launch should offer ride-share for a space based observatory. Astronomy will only improve with space based telescopes. Yes, spacecraft are expensive but so are Earth based observatories, but how does it look with launch cost removed from the equation?
> - Those who enjoy nature
Generally can't see the satellites with the naked eye. Should probably concentrate on not walking into a hole / body of water / off a steep precipice.
This complaint about the aesthetics of the night sky is the wimpy enemy of progress. Imagine bronze / iron age people up in arms because suddenly the sea is full of fishing boats and merchant vessels. Or people up in arms because farmland has spoiled the view of forests.
Yes, I think this stuff looks nice without man-made things. I enjoy the night sky. I also enjoy being able to eat and utilize modern technology. There will come a day when spacecraft coming and going will be as routine as we see airplanes now, so our descendants will have that to complain about next, until it becomes as pointless to complain about as the asphalt roads that have lead to and from or houses.
Space based technology will make life better for all of humanity just like every technology that has come before it. The genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't that simple, is it? Even if you place the black surface on a spacer (adding mass, might I add), the black surface itself is going to radiate heat back onto the satellite via blackbody radiation. This is always going to create a worse thermal situation unless you can somehow radiate away as much heat as you could with reflections. To see what I mean, check out JWST's thermal shield.
How about something like this? | __ | |_/\_| | | | \/ |__| E 1 2 3 E is the Earth. 1 is a thin lightweight black disc to block the view of the rest of the satellite. 3 is the working parts of the satellite. 2 are mirrors to direct any emissions from 1 in the direction of 3 out to the sides and to direct any emissions from 3 in the direction of 1 out to sides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no concept of airspace in space. You have very few avenues to keep a sat restricted to a geographic region. Orbits like geostationary and molniya exist - but they come with their own limitations for many applications.
The concept of “airspace” is purely a legal one and exits only if your country has an air force able to enforce it (see how Israel has absolute control over Lebanese airspace), any country with anti-sattelite technology could at its disposal could declare that their airspace goes up to the geostationary orbit or even above. Of course it would complicate the use of satellites a lot, but given their military importance…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't that simple, is it? Even if you place the black surface on a spacer (adding mass, might I add), the black surface itself is going to radiate heat back onto the satellite via blackbody radiation. This is always going to create a worse thermal situation unless you can somehow radiate away as much heat as you could with reflections. To see what I mean, check out JWST's thermal shield.
To complicate it further I thought that some of the military sats had rotating black panels to shield them from ground visibility?
I’d be more concerned about the light pollution from the city (Perth?) on the horizon.
I'd be more concerned about both. One evil doesn't cancel the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The concept of “airspace” is purely a legal one and exits only if your country has an air force able to enforce it (see how Israel has absolute control over Lebanese airspace), any country with anti-sattelite technology could at its disposal could declare that their airspace goes up to the geostationary orbit or even above. Of course it would complicate the use of satellites a lot, but given their military importance…
There are soft kill mechanisms that can avoid the Kessler syndrome, at least in the beginning. But that isn't the reason why territories aren't defined beyond the atmosphere. It's easy for a plane to avoid flying over another country. But it isn't as simple for satellites to avoid flying over another nation. Orbital mechanics doesn't give you much freedom to do that. Satellites overfly hostile territories thousands o…
Image is stacked from multiple images during sunset/sunrise when satellites are most visible because of sun position to observer. Photographer is in dark while satellites are lighted by direct sunlight.
During night, its barely visible.
"Stitching together 343 distinct photos," I don't doubt that this is a real problem for astronomers and photographers, but I feel like if you had to work that hard, it doesn't really make your case.
These photos are taken in pitch-black darkness. You need to take a lot of exposures in order to get the data necessary to even see anything.