4 ms·

Anec-data, but in my shots of the comets there were 0 satellites and about 12 airplanes with flashing lights that I had to remove. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I get the frustrat

Anec-data, but in my shots of the comets there were 0 satellites and about 12 airplanes with flashing lights that I had to remove. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I get the frustration, and no doubt I'll be pissed when I have a shot that's more affected, but amateur astrophotography seems like the least-important reason to be concerned about Starlink. But then, the photo is going to get more attention, for sure.

wl 6y ago
Anecdotally, I took about 100 exposures of the comet last weekend with shutter speeds ranging from 10-20 seconds. There were satellite streaks in every exposure! I don't ever remember it being this bad.
autokad 6y ago
It doesnt matter the impact of amateur astrophotography's work, starlink doesn't have the right to take that from them. I do think we need to evaluate whether these costs are worth it. I go further. I myself think we need to take a second look at city light. I'd like us to begin working on making the milky way visible again.
- animal_spirits 6y ago
  I agree. Vast populations of people can't know their place in the universe because they physically can not see it. What can we do to avoid that? In suburbs it seams feasible to stop building / start removing streetlamps in neighborhoods that don't necessarily need them, but I don't know how that would work in bigger cities
  - kergonath 6y ago
    Better, more directional street lamps help, even in large cities. We can tune their wavelength to be less blinding as well. They do not need to illuminate the sky. More of them, and less powerful, would provide better light where it’s actually needed. The other side is to reduce emissions of aerosols and particles that scatter light in the atmosphere.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  > starlink doesn't have the right to take that from them. I do think we need to evaluate whether these costs are worth it. Yes, but when doing that, let's also take into account the fact that Starlink exists to open up space access. Starlink doesn't exist (just) to provide Internet access, it exists primarily to fund Starship and further reduce costs of space missions. This makes it one of the most important thing happening for astronomy.
  - ganafagol 6y ago
    Yeah, so it basically exists to bring FB and Google to more people on the planet easier. We're selling out our skies to the ad industry. For free! What a great idea. Textbook example for tragedy of the commons. Luckily we didn't do the same with earthly resources like water, air, wild animals, ... oh wait
beervirus 6y ago
... what’s the most important reason to be concerned?

wl 6y ago

Anecdotally, I took about 100 exposures of the comet last weekend with shutter speeds ranging from 10-20 seconds. There were satellite streaks in every exposure! I don't ever remember it being this bad.

autokad 6y ago

It doesnt matter the impact of amateur astrophotography's work, starlink doesn't have the right to take that from them. I do think we need to evaluate whether these costs are worth it. I go further. I myself think we need to take a second look at city light. I'd like us to begin working on making the milky way visible again.

animal_spirits 6y ago
I agree. Vast populations of people can't know their place in the universe because they physically can not see it. What can we do to avoid that? In suburbs it seams feasible to stop building / start removing streetlamps in neighborhoods that don't necessarily need them, but I don't know how that would work in bigger cities
- kergonath 6y ago
  Better, more directional street lamps help, even in large cities. We can tune their wavelength to be less blinding as well. They do not need to illuminate the sky. More of them, and less powerful, would provide better light where it’s actually needed. The other side is to reduce emissions of aerosols and particles that scatter light in the atmosphere.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> starlink doesn't have the right to take that from them. I do think we need to evaluate whether these costs are worth it. Yes, but when doing that, let's also take into account the fact that Starlink exists to open up space access. Starlink doesn't exist (just) to provide Internet access, it exists primarily to fund Starship and further reduce costs of space missions. This makes it one of the most important thing happening for astronomy.
- ganafagol 6y ago
  Yeah, so it basically exists to bring FB and Google to more people on the planet easier. We're selling out our skies to the ad industry. For free! What a great idea. Textbook example for tragedy of the commons. Luckily we didn't do the same with earthly resources like water, air, wild animals, ... oh wait

beervirus 6y ago

... what’s the most important reason to be concerned?