7 ms·

Saw the Starlink train go through Orion last night, a tiny sliver of the trashing of the night sky that is to come. SpaceX is no longer cool. I plan to tell th

Saw the Starlink train go through Orion last night, a tiny sliver of the trashing of the night sky that is to come. SpaceX is no longer cool. I plan to tell this to everyone who will listen.

Insanity 7y ago
Not to take away from your post (because I agree), but satellites already clutter a lot of the space surrounding earth even without SpaceX.
- verytrivial 7y ago
  Are you aware of how many of them there are? And where they will be in the sky? And how low they are? And how shinny? And that they perform their own station keeping so you can't plan your observations around them? And how much money is being spent on Really Big Telescopes that are due to come online over the next few years? I think the single term 'clutter' needs to stretched a LOT to cover both before and after these are up. And their 'low reflection' ones only drop mag by 0.8. It's a looming disaster (refreshingly unrelated to the other more important one happening right now): https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21190273/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-constellation-astronomy-coating https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21190273/spacex-starlink-...
  - Insanity 7y ago
    I wasn't, thanks for the verge post and tl;dr. That looks much worse indeed
  - valuearb 7y ago
    And they are only visible briefly after sunset and before sunrise because they spend the rest of the night in earth's shadow?
101404 7y ago
"People in rural Africa should not have internet because I want an unobstructed view of the stars" ...is not a good argument. The only good place for a telescope is the far side of the moon.
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  The people in rural Africa argument is BS. Here is a 2016 report (see link in this CNN story) https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/africa/africa-afrobarometer-infrastructure-report/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/africa/africa-afrobaromet... that found: "In Africa, less than one in three people have a proper drainage system, half of the population live in areas without paved roads, and only 63% have access to piped water. Yet, 93% of Africans have cell phone service." Over the course of the next five years, 4G and 5G coverage in Africa will likely cover 95% of the population. The really strange thing about Starlink is that there really seems to be no business case. It seems almost like it's based on taking the half-assed broadband coverage in the US, and extrapolating to the rest of the world by assuming it must be worse.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    Musk is from South Africa. I would expect him to have a better grasp of the distribution of needs of the worlds population than many american innovators.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      He got out and never looked back is my impression, for instance it's certainly not where he first spends his charity money [1]. At most he's given some money to his former high school, but there are rumours that was done in exchange to them not contacting him any more [2]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-musks-secretive-foundation-benefits-his-own-family https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-... [2]: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/why-did-elon-musk-leave-south-africa/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/why-did-elon-musk-...
bryanlarsen 7y ago
If you saw the train then you saw it in transit (which takes 3 months), not in its final position.
- verytrivial 7y ago
  Good point. It seems they'll be much more spread out but with many more tracks so you'll see them ... everywhere, more or less?
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    They'll be quite visible near the horizon the 30 minutes around sunrise and sunset. They're in very low earth orbit so they are in earth shadow and not visible to the naked eye the rest of the night.
  - valuearb 7y ago
    They will also be at higher altitudes, reducing their brightness.
anon102010 7y ago
I hope this group of astronomers is entirely defunded - zero them out. Start fresh with a group based on satellite observations. The increased access to space that SpaceX represents will be a boon to this new group. If you look at the costs / time to get the TMT up for example it is absolutely ridiculous. For $1B you could launch amazing missions on SpaceX - but there are so many invested interests in these big porkbarrel projects that there is little chance of that.
- henrikeh 7y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that _all_ Earth-based astronomy should be stopped? Do you know about the issue involved in making telescopes? In making space telescopes? Look at the James Webb telescope; do you think the cost and difficulty lies in the launch?
  - anon102010 7y ago
    Yes - there is a great opportunity for a new type / class of astronomy based in space. That should be the focus going forward. If all these astronomers can do is (usually incorrectly) say that land based astronomy can no longer happen - zero out their funding. Seriously - look into some of the port barrel type endless projects going on - TMT for example. It's ridiculous. Look at ultraviolet, infrared, X-ray and gamma-ray astronomy - the idea that you are going to be doing high quality work on these on land is also silly - huge opportunities are in space for this. For all the talk of satellites obscuring the view - you ALREADY need tons of processing / active adaptions to handle a much much bigger impact - atmospheric distortion! Seriously - the stars "twinkle" because of this. This an entire sky effect. The reality is the land based interests are all the tenured folks at big universities and really depend on these long streams of funding - so I recognize almost no chance. But if there are young astronomers on HN - look to space positively to see what might be possible there! You'll find the forward thinkers may already be there! For those interested in the challenges and opportunities - large fleet observations unobstructed by atmo. For large diameters (also still valuable) cracking some robotic build out (or even astronout build out options) would be great because a ton of complexity is in the unfolding mechanisms for planned large space telescopes. Anything that let you get a high volume of segments up and then assemble those in space would open up the door to HUGE telescopes. The future is going to be much more SpaceX style than SLS style (the next telescopes are planned for SLS - literally pork on pork - should be amazing results but the costs are eye watering).
Scapeghost 7y ago
The "trashing of the night sky" was already committed by all the light pollution being emitted from cities since decades ago. It's a shame. Cities are no longer cool. I plan to tell this to everyone who will listen.
- verytrivial 7y ago
  Cities haven't been cool for astronomy for a very long time, so the telescopes go elsewhere to look up. These new satellites are in the sky where the telescopes are trying to look. It seems strange to need to point this out.
  - cnlevy 7y ago
    They've been working on mitigating the problem https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/darksat-is-dimmer https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/darksat-is-di...
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    > so the telescopes go elsewhere to look up Lift the telescopes to orbit, to the moon, and to Lagrange points. Lift is cheap now. We're trying to get off this rock, not fight over it's shortcomings.
    - verytrivial 7y ago
      I assume you've been keeping track of how much JWST has cost before launch. Launch is not even close to the dominating cost for a serious telescope.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        > I assume you've been keeping track of how much JWST has cost before launch. Yes. > Launch is not even close to the dominating cost for a serious telescope. Even more reason to move observation off planet. Why are we not commoditizing observation platforms? Planet Labs, inexpensively images the entire earth daily, with satellites the size of shoeboxes [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2018/05/28/this-maker-of-tiny-satellites-is-disrupting-the-space-industrial-complex/#3af1e90b486c https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2018/05/28/this-make...
vasco 7y ago
This seems akin to being against wind power generation because it "ruins" the view. Most space "views" are already ruined by light pollution, surely you don't propose we eliminate cities as well?
- verytrivial 7y ago
  Yeah, but it isn't akin though, is it? Well, it is if you only consider the aesthetics of the sky, which is not the problem here. It's the science of astronomy being made more difficult and/or expensive. You might not think that is important, but some people do. For what it's worth, I thought the satellites looked amazing and my kids were thrilled, but I'd looked up for an ISS pass, which was until recently a rare sort of event. And so it goes.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    You might not think connecting remainder of the world is important, but some people do. Ground telescopes have reached their limit. We use giant radio telescopes that account for satellites and space based telescopes for all the recent discoveries. Yes keeping the night sky clear is important, light pollution is the worst offender. It just seems like feigned outrage tbh, especially when you're ignoring the fact that SpaceX has addressed your concerns and have proposed adjustments. I could see your point more if they had not commented at all.
- addHocker 7y ago
  I wonder though, why windpower can not be made with transparent - metamaterial covered rotors? Thesis, Anthesis, Synthesis. Liberate yourself from the For-Against Mindset, and subvert obsticles, instead of allowing them to become part of yourself.
mft_ 7y ago
So SpaceX was ‘cool’ to you before, presumably because of their startup and disruptive nature, combined with advances like landing reusable rockets and genuine plans to colonise Mars... yet all of this is invalidated by the impact of Starlink on earth-based astronomy? Have I got that right?
- verytrivial 7y ago
  Bingo! They are a commercial space launch company and there is money to be made (in internet access), so they're as cool as that is cool. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs! It doesn't even matter if they your eggs! Just go for it! So, no. Not cool. And speaking directly to your question: it is everyone's prerogative to make these sort of character judgements, just as you're making one now.
  - mft_ 7y ago
    I'm certainly not making any sort of character judgement - I'm just trying to clarify and understand another individual's (yours) weighting of factors in a particular situation. It's always an interesting exercise, as each one of us comes with different inbuilt biases and moral standards. In this case, not being (remotely) an astronomer, I'll freely admit that my bias is to be less concerned about this issue - especially as I've read conflicting accounts of how damaging it will be for astronomy, and also because SpaceX are apparently still trying to improve their satellites in this regard, meaning the final impact isn't even yet known? And besides this, landing rockets and planning to colonise Mars is still quite cool ;)
ragebol 7y ago
There are plans & ongoing tests to make them much less reflective. If when they are invisible, they can still occlude a bit of sky very briefly but that's solved by astronomy already AFAIK. Also happens with the existing satellites.
Waterluvian 7y ago
The first half of that first sentence is so darn Sci Fi.

Saw the Starlink train go through Orion last night, a tiny sliver of the trashing of the night sky that is to come. SpaceX is no longer cool. I plan to tell this to everyone who will listen.

Insanity 7y ago

Not to take away from your post (because I agree), but satellites already clutter a lot of the space surrounding earth even without SpaceX.

verytrivial 7y ago
Are you aware of how many of them there are? And where they will be in the sky? And how low they are? And how shinny? And that they perform their own station keeping so you can't plan your observations around them? And how much money is being spent on Really Big Telescopes that are due to come online over the next few years? I think the single term 'clutter' needs to stretched a LOT to cover both before and after these are up. And their 'low reflection' ones only drop mag by 0.8. It's a looming disaster (refreshingly unrelated to the other more important one happening right now): https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21190273/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-constellation-astronomy-coating https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/24/21190273/spacex-starlink-...
- Insanity 7y ago
  I wasn't, thanks for the verge post and tl;dr. That looks much worse indeed
- valuearb 7y ago
  And they are only visible briefly after sunset and before sunrise because they spend the rest of the night in earth's shadow?

101404 7y ago

"People in rural Africa should not have internet because I want an unobstructed view of the stars" ...is not a good argument. The only good place for a telescope is the far side of the moon.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago
The people in rural Africa argument is BS. Here is a 2016 report (see link in this CNN story) https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/africa/africa-afrobarometer-infrastructure-report/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/africa/africa-afrobaromet... that found: "In Africa, less than one in three people have a proper drainage system, half of the population live in areas without paved roads, and only 63% have access to piped water. Yet, 93% of Africans have cell phone service." Over the course of the next five years, 4G and 5G coverage in Africa will likely cover 95% of the population. The really strange thing about Starlink is that there really seems to be no business case. It seems almost like it's based on taking the half-assed broadband coverage in the US, and extrapolating to the rest of the world by assuming it must be worse.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  Musk is from South Africa. I would expect him to have a better grasp of the distribution of needs of the worlds population than many american innovators.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    He got out and never looked back is my impression, for instance it's certainly not where he first spends his charity money [1]. At most he's given some money to his former high school, but there are rumours that was done in exchange to them not contacting him any more [2]. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-musks-secretive-foundation-benefits-his-own-family https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-... [2]: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/why-did-elon-musk-leave-south-africa/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/why-did-elon-musk-...

bryanlarsen 7y ago

If you saw the train then you saw it in transit (which takes 3 months), not in its final position.

verytrivial 7y ago
Good point. It seems they'll be much more spread out but with many more tracks so you'll see them ... everywhere, more or less?
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  They'll be quite visible near the horizon the 30 minutes around sunrise and sunset. They're in very low earth orbit so they are in earth shadow and not visible to the naked eye the rest of the night.
- valuearb 7y ago
  They will also be at higher altitudes, reducing their brightness.

anon102010 7y ago

I hope this group of astronomers is entirely defunded - zero them out. Start fresh with a group based on satellite observations. The increased access to space that SpaceX represents will be a boon to this new group. If you look at the costs / time to get the TMT up for example it is absolutely ridiculous. For $1B you could launch amazing missions on SpaceX - but there are so many invested interests in these big porkbarrel projects that there is little chance of that.

henrikeh 7y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that _all_ Earth-based astronomy should be stopped? Do you know about the issue involved in making telescopes? In making space telescopes? Look at the James Webb telescope; do you think the cost and difficulty lies in the launch?
- anon102010 7y ago
  Yes - there is a great opportunity for a new type / class of astronomy based in space. That should be the focus going forward. If all these astronomers can do is (usually incorrectly) say that land based astronomy can no longer happen - zero out their funding. Seriously - look into some of the port barrel type endless projects going on - TMT for example. It's ridiculous. Look at ultraviolet, infrared, X-ray and gamma-ray astronomy - the idea that you are going to be doing high quality work on these on land is also silly - huge opportunities are in space for this. For all the talk of satellites obscuring the view - you ALREADY need tons of processing / active adaptions to handle a much much bigger impact - atmospheric distortion! Seriously - the stars "twinkle" because of this. This an entire sky effect. The reality is the land based interests are all the tenured folks at big universities and really depend on these long streams of funding - so I recognize almost no chance. But if there are young astronomers on HN - look to space positively to see what might be possible there! You'll find the forward thinkers may already be there! For those interested in the challenges and opportunities - large fleet observations unobstructed by atmo. For large diameters (also still valuable) cracking some robotic build out (or even astronout build out options) would be great because a ton of complexity is in the unfolding mechanisms for planned large space telescopes. Anything that let you get a high volume of segments up and then assemble those in space would open up the door to HUGE telescopes. The future is going to be much more SpaceX style than SLS style (the next telescopes are planned for SLS - literally pork on pork - should be amazing results but the costs are eye watering).

Scapeghost 7y ago

The "trashing of the night sky" was already committed by all the light pollution being emitted from cities since decades ago. It's a shame. Cities are no longer cool. I plan to tell this to everyone who will listen.

verytrivial 7y ago
Cities haven't been cool for astronomy for a very long time, so the telescopes go elsewhere to look up. These new satellites are in the sky where the telescopes are trying to look. It seems strange to need to point this out.
- cnlevy 7y ago
  They've been working on mitigating the problem https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/darksat-is-dimmer https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/darksat-is-di...
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  > so the telescopes go elsewhere to look up Lift the telescopes to orbit, to the moon, and to Lagrange points. Lift is cheap now. We're trying to get off this rock, not fight over it's shortcomings.
  - verytrivial 7y ago
    I assume you've been keeping track of how much JWST has cost before launch. Launch is not even close to the dominating cost for a serious telescope.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      > I assume you've been keeping track of how much JWST has cost before launch. Yes. > Launch is not even close to the dominating cost for a serious telescope. Even more reason to move observation off planet. Why are we not commoditizing observation platforms? Planet Labs, inexpensively images the entire earth daily, with satellites the size of shoeboxes [1]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2018/05/28/this-maker-of-tiny-satellites-is-disrupting-the-space-industrial-complex/#3af1e90b486c https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmarkman/2018/05/28/this-make...

vasco 7y ago

This seems akin to being against wind power generation because it "ruins" the view. Most space "views" are already ruined by light pollution, surely you don't propose we eliminate cities as well?

verytrivial 7y ago
Yeah, but it isn't akin though, is it? Well, it is if you only consider the aesthetics of the sky, which is not the problem here. It's the science of astronomy being made more difficult and/or expensive. You might not think that is important, but some people do. For what it's worth, I thought the satellites looked amazing and my kids were thrilled, but I'd looked up for an ISS pass, which was until recently a rare sort of event. And so it goes.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  You might not think connecting remainder of the world is important, but some people do. Ground telescopes have reached their limit. We use giant radio telescopes that account for satellites and space based telescopes for all the recent discoveries. Yes keeping the night sky clear is important, light pollution is the worst offender. It just seems like feigned outrage tbh, especially when you're ignoring the fact that SpaceX has addressed your concerns and have proposed adjustments. I could see your point more if they had not commented at all.
addHocker 7y ago
I wonder though, why windpower can not be made with transparent - metamaterial covered rotors? Thesis, Anthesis, Synthesis. Liberate yourself from the For-Against Mindset, and subvert obsticles, instead of allowing them to become part of yourself.

mft_ 7y ago

So SpaceX was ‘cool’ to you before, presumably because of their startup and disruptive nature, combined with advances like landing reusable rockets and genuine plans to colonise Mars... yet all of this is invalidated by the impact of Starlink on earth-based astronomy? Have I got that right?

verytrivial 7y ago
Bingo! They are a commercial space launch company and there is money to be made (in internet access), so they're as cool as that is cool. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs! It doesn't even matter if they your eggs! Just go for it! So, no. Not cool. And speaking directly to your question: it is everyone's prerogative to make these sort of character judgements, just as you're making one now.
- mft_ 7y ago
  I'm certainly not making any sort of character judgement - I'm just trying to clarify and understand another individual's (yours) weighting of factors in a particular situation. It's always an interesting exercise, as each one of us comes with different inbuilt biases and moral standards. In this case, not being (remotely) an astronomer, I'll freely admit that my bias is to be less concerned about this issue - especially as I've read conflicting accounts of how damaging it will be for astronomy, and also because SpaceX are apparently still trying to improve their satellites in this regard, meaning the final impact isn't even yet known? And besides this, landing rockets and planning to colonise Mars is still quite cool ;)

ragebol 7y ago

There are plans & ongoing tests to make them much less reflective. If when they are invisible, they can still occlude a bit of sky very briefly but that's solved by astronomy already AFAIK. Also happens with the existing satellites.

Waterluvian 7y ago

The first half of that first sentence is so darn Sci Fi.