4 ms·

This feels a bit like "we'll all drown in horse manure by year 2000" kind of issue. Given the way SpaceX is going, we'll probably end up with a wide range of sp

by mopsi 6y ago

This feels a bit like "we'll all drown in horse manure by year 2000" kind of issue. Given the way SpaceX is going, we'll probably end up with a wide range of space-based observatories that offer much better tools than current ground-based observatories that are limited by Earth's atmosphere, noise from radio local transmissions, overflying satellites, etc.

penagwin 6y ago
The reason why the largest telescope observatories are on earth is because it's I feasible to get them into orbit. And it's not a theoretical problem - there's plenty of people who have already had their work impacted Software to remove the satellites would be great, given that the satellites are already interfering with astrophotography, can someone point me to the software to remove the starlink satellites from my images?
- LeifCarrotson 6y ago
  Sure, here are a couple examples: http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/userguide.htm http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/userguide.htm https://www.astronomie.be/registax/index.html https://www.astronomie.be/registax/index.html There are a few use cases/reasons to put telescope observatories on earth. One reason is because it's cheap enough for hobbyists. An ordinary enthusiast can go out in their backyard and point a couple hundred dollars worth of gear at the sky and get shockingly gorgeous images with little more than a webcam and a cheap scope. Software like what I linked above can help remove satellites from those images. Post-processing of images is a (nearly) cost-free but complexity-expensive way to remove noise, distortion, and other artifacts from the images produced by cheap gear, might as well remove satellites while you're at it! The second reason is because it's cheap enough for scientists and students. A few universities have their own observatories. They're abundantly aware that not only satellites but also air and light pollution get in the way of good seeing. There are all kinds of effort devoted to fixing the problems that air and light pollution cause, but the easiest fix is just to move the telescope. A university can contract time for its students with an observatory in a favorable location (low light pollution, clear skies, right latitude/hemisphere, high altitude, good seeing) and do science through that remote interface. These are, I think, the most important users to take care of with space-based telescopes. Maybe their Chilean observatory doesn't have the server hardware or network connection to do stacking and post-processing to remove satellites, and images taken by the old method of long exposure astrophotography are getting ruined by satellites. Time on a space-based telescope would, for many use-cases, be as good or better than time on a terrestrial observatory. And there are zero air or weather issues! The third is because it's the only place where we can put telescopes of the required size for a particular imaging task. Maybe they're in an interferometric array, maybe they're 3+ meters in diameter, who knows. There are only a couple dozen telescopes in this category in the world, the few astronomers using these telescopes don't need HN commenters to point them to software to remove satellites! I do acknowledge that processing for a hobbyist does increase the learning curve and reduce the raw awesomeness of the hobby a bit - "why not just go to nasa.gov and download someone else's preprocessed images" isn't the same as seeing something from your own backyard through nothing but a mirror and a piece of glass. I also acknowledge that there's a ton of money invested in terrestrial observatories, but everyone needs to keep up with the times.
turnsnake55 6y ago
To libertarians, everything is the stupid horse manure thing. Space telescopes will never be cheaper than ground telescopes. This is mind numbingly obvious. Just say you don’t care about astronomy.
sandworm101 6y ago
That was true in the 90s, now ground-based telescopes outpace most potential space telescopes. Adaptive optics mean the atmosphere is no longer the wobbly lens it once was.

by mopsi 6y ago

penagwin 6y ago

The reason why the largest telescope observatories are on earth is because it's I feasible to get them into orbit. And it's not a theoretical problem - there's plenty of people who have already had their work impacted Software to remove the satellites would be great, given that the satellites are already interfering with astrophotography, can someone point me to the software to remove the starlink satellites from my images?

LeifCarrotson 6y ago
Sure, here are a couple examples: http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/userguide.htm http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/userguide.htm https://www.astronomie.be/registax/index.html https://www.astronomie.be/registax/index.html There are a few use cases/reasons to put telescope observatories on earth. One reason is because it's cheap enough for hobbyists. An ordinary enthusiast can go out in their backyard and point a couple hundred dollars worth of gear at the sky and get shockingly gorgeous images with little more than a webcam and a cheap scope. Software like what I linked above can help remove satellites from those images. Post-processing of images is a (nearly) cost-free but complexity-expensive way to remove noise, distortion, and other artifacts from the images produced by cheap gear, might as well remove satellites while you're at it! The second reason is because it's cheap enough for scientists and students. A few universities have their own observatories. They're abundantly aware that not only satellites but also air and light pollution get in the way of good seeing. There are all kinds of effort devoted to fixing the problems that air and light pollution cause, but the easiest fix is just to move the telescope. A university can contract time for its students with an observatory in a favorable location (low light pollution, clear skies, right latitude/hemisphere, high altitude, good seeing) and do science through that remote interface. These are, I think, the most important users to take care of with space-based telescopes. Maybe their Chilean observatory doesn't have the server hardware or network connection to do stacking and post-processing to remove satellites, and images taken by the old method of long exposure astrophotography are getting ruined by satellites. Time on a space-based telescope would, for many use-cases, be as good or better than time on a terrestrial observatory. And there are zero air or weather issues! The third is because it's the only place where we can put telescopes of the required size for a particular imaging task. Maybe they're in an interferometric array, maybe they're 3+ meters in diameter, who knows. There are only a couple dozen telescopes in this category in the world, the few astronomers using these telescopes don't need HN commenters to point them to software to remove satellites! I do acknowledge that processing for a hobbyist does increase the learning curve and reduce the raw awesomeness of the hobby a bit - "why not just go to nasa.gov and download someone else's preprocessed images" isn't the same as seeing something from your own backyard through nothing but a mirror and a piece of glass. I also acknowledge that there's a ton of money invested in terrestrial observatories, but everyone needs to keep up with the times.

turnsnake55 6y ago

To libertarians, everything is the stupid horse manure thing. Space telescopes will never be cheaper than ground telescopes. This is mind numbingly obvious. Just say you don’t care about astronomy.

sandworm101 6y ago

That was true in the 90s, now ground-based telescopes outpace most potential space telescopes. Adaptive optics mean the atmosphere is no longer the wobbly lens it once was.