4 ms·

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 astronom

by chr1 7y ago

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 simply not comparable.

throwaway2048 7y ago
There are a tiny handful of space based satellites, its far more than only a "bit" of inconvenience.
- chr1 7y ago
  I mean it is a small inconvenience for telescopes on earth, and not that "it is a small inconvenience in general because there are space telescopes". Genuine question: is your opinion about these satellites based on working in some related field, or simply on dislike of greedy capitalists? I have a phd in physics and have friends who work as astronomers, with whom i've talked about this. Of course there is always a chance that we misunderstand everything, but i have never seen any plausible arguments for why are some people considering starlink to be the end of world for astronomy, and i don't understand why are there so many people on hn defending "poor astronomers" from "The Evil Corporation".
  - mlyle 7y ago
    I have worked on high-end telescope controls and imaging systems. For some types of astronomy --- especially larger fields -- heavily increased use of LEO may reduce the effective hours of observation by 4 hours a night by spoiling most exposures, while creating some impact at other hours. This is more than a 33% reduction in throughput. Even with a smaller satellite population, there's been losses of valuable data. Two images in an early sequence of SN1987A had a (amazing improbable) perfect satellite streak right down the middle. Or there's this past APOD https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1910/M31Before_Scherer_4298.jpg https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1910/M31Before_Scherer_4298... where we see the effect of the current satellite population (and a few planes with the ~10 parallel lines from upper right to lower left) on a big stack of images of Andromeda. Zooming in makes it obvious there are many more trails than leap out -- including a few neat tumbling objects's with periodic brightness changes (not the plane strobes). What's tripling the number of satellites going to do? I am concerned about increasing satellite counts for a few reasons (including the potential debris problems) I don't think it should preclude progress, but existing and future stakeholders (astronomers, people who enjoy dark skies, current/future users of LEO) should be considered.

by chr1 7y ago

throwaway2048 7y ago

There are a tiny handful of space based satellites, its far more than only a "bit" of inconvenience.

chr1 7y ago
I mean it is a small inconvenience for telescopes on earth, and not that "it is a small inconvenience in general because there are space telescopes". Genuine question: is your opinion about these satellites based on working in some related field, or simply on dislike of greedy capitalists? I have a phd in physics and have friends who work as astronomers, with whom i've talked about this. Of course there is always a chance that we misunderstand everything, but i have never seen any plausible arguments for why are some people considering starlink to be the end of world for astronomy, and i don't understand why are there so many people on hn defending "poor astronomers" from "The Evil Corporation".
- mlyle 7y ago
  I have worked on high-end telescope controls and imaging systems. For some types of astronomy --- especially larger fields -- heavily increased use of LEO may reduce the effective hours of observation by 4 hours a night by spoiling most exposures, while creating some impact at other hours. This is more than a 33% reduction in throughput. Even with a smaller satellite population, there's been losses of valuable data. Two images in an early sequence of SN1987A had a (amazing improbable) perfect satellite streak right down the middle. Or there's this past APOD https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1910/M31Before_Scherer_4298.jpg https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1910/M31Before_Scherer_4298... where we see the effect of the current satellite population (and a few planes with the ~10 parallel lines from upper right to lower left) on a big stack of images of Andromeda. Zooming in makes it obvious there are many more trails than leap out -- including a few neat tumbling objects's with periodic brightness changes (not the plane strobes). What's tripling the number of satellites going to do? I am concerned about increasing satellite counts for a few reasons (including the potential debris problems) I don't think it should preclude progress, but existing and future stakeholders (astronomers, people who enjoy dark skies, current/future users of LEO) should be considered.