4 ms·

> which I would say is trivial I'm frankly amazed at the arrogance on display here. Do you honestly think you know better then the entire field of astronomy?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
0-_-0 6y ago
You point to saying that 2% is a small part of an image as a sign of arrogance? Isn't it a small part of an image?
- Swenrekcah 6y ago
  It is a small part of an image, but that does not mean it's not a significant disturbance. Think for instance about CO2 levels. Is it such a big deal if they reach 1% of the atmosphere? It's only a small part after all.
- dx87 6y ago
  You didn't say it's small, you said it's "trivial". This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100% if it still ruins what they're working on. So yes, you're being arrogant by saying that just because it's a "trivial" amount that's ruined, when you don't understand what they're doing.
  - 0-_-0 6y ago
    2% is trivial. They lost 2% of information (as someone pointed out this might be closer to 20%). This means the cost to the astronomer was 2% (or 20%). Calling this "ruining" is an exaggeration. Of course it would ruin a pretty picture, but "This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work." where you can choose the part of information you take into account.
    - Balgair 6y ago
      Except if the thing you're trying to measure is in that 20%. Astronomy is time limited, you may never get the opportunity again.
valuearb 6y ago
If the entire field of astronomy is so educated on the subject, why do most not know Starlink was never visible except at dawn or dusk, and it’s already implemented successful mitigations for those tones with visors?
- dayjobpork 6y ago
  Unless Musk has secretly invented Romulan cloaking technology, being invisible doesn't help when you are trying to look at the stuff behind
  - valuearb 6y ago
    What percentage of the night sky will be obscured if Starlink goes to 30,000 satellites? Let me guess, if the visual radius of a one meter satellite 550,000 meters away is (1/X)^2. Thirty thousand would be 1/one trillion, or far less?
    - huonpine 6y ago
      Its not just about Starlink though, its about setting a precedent before every company and country starts launching competing constellations. When should we start to care after the first few thousand or after hundred of thousands of eventual satellite's?
      - valuearb 6y ago
        It would take trillions to appreciably dim the night sky. Wake me then.
- astrophysician 6y ago
  ...wow. (1) astronomers are pretty darn aware of everything going on, and it's really shocking as an astronomer to see these sorts of claims. There have been close collaborations with Space X to try to mitigate some issues, but these are partial mitigations and the most important ones are only planned, not implemented. The "successful" mitigations I think you're referring to is their "DarkSat" coating, which is not actually a successful mitigation. It is still ~2x as bright as the ~maximum level of acceptable brightness for e.g. LSST. (2) Space-X did not release any details about brightness characteristics, and they themselves claim that they were "surprised" by the brightness. To people that work in space rather routinely, that is staggeringly incompetent. (3) > why do most not know Starlink was never visible except at dawn or dusk Near earth object (NEO) detection only happens during these times. NEO includes "asteroids that threaten human life" so I would hope you agree that this is pretty important. Also, depending on latitude and time of year, "dawn or dusk" can constitute your entire observing window. So this doesn't really make things better. (4) all of these mitigations should be done before companies can start doing ~10,000 satellite launches. The only reason this isn't done is outdated legislation that never conceived of this being possible.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

0-_-0 6y ago

You point to saying that 2% is a small part of an image as a sign of arrogance? Isn't it a small part of an image?

Swenrekcah 6y ago
It is a small part of an image, but that does not mean it's not a significant disturbance. Think for instance about CO2 levels. Is it such a big deal if they reach 1% of the atmosphere? It's only a small part after all.
dx87 6y ago
You didn't say it's small, you said it's "trivial". This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work. It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 100% if it still ruins what they're working on. So yes, you're being arrogant by saying that just because it's a "trivial" amount that's ruined, when you don't understand what they're doing.
- 0-_-0 6y ago
  2% is trivial. They lost 2% of information (as someone pointed out this might be closer to 20%). This means the cost to the astronomer was 2% (or 20%). Calling this "ruining" is an exaggeration. Of course it would ruin a pretty picture, but "This isn't about people taking pretty pictures, this is about people trying to do actual work." where you can choose the part of information you take into account.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Except if the thing you're trying to measure is in that 20%. Astronomy is time limited, you may never get the opportunity again.

valuearb 6y ago

If the entire field of astronomy is so educated on the subject, why do most not know Starlink was never visible except at dawn or dusk, and it’s already implemented successful mitigations for those tones with visors?

dayjobpork 6y ago
Unless Musk has secretly invented Romulan cloaking technology, being invisible doesn't help when you are trying to look at the stuff behind
- valuearb 6y ago
  What percentage of the night sky will be obscured if Starlink goes to 30,000 satellites? Let me guess, if the visual radius of a one meter satellite 550,000 meters away is (1/X)^2. Thirty thousand would be 1/one trillion, or far less?
  - huonpine 6y ago
    Its not just about Starlink though, its about setting a precedent before every company and country starts launching competing constellations. When should we start to care after the first few thousand or after hundred of thousands of eventual satellite's?
    - valuearb 6y ago
      It would take trillions to appreciably dim the night sky. Wake me then.
astrophysician 6y ago
...wow. (1) astronomers are pretty darn aware of everything going on, and it's really shocking as an astronomer to see these sorts of claims. There have been close collaborations with Space X to try to mitigate some issues, but these are partial mitigations and the most important ones are only planned, not implemented. The "successful" mitigations I think you're referring to is their "DarkSat" coating, which is not actually a successful mitigation. It is still ~2x as bright as the ~maximum level of acceptable brightness for e.g. LSST. (2) Space-X did not release any details about brightness characteristics, and they themselves claim that they were "surprised" by the brightness. To people that work in space rather routinely, that is staggeringly incompetent. (3) > why do most not know Starlink was never visible except at dawn or dusk Near earth object (NEO) detection only happens during these times. NEO includes "asteroids that threaten human life" so I would hope you agree that this is pretty important. Also, depending on latitude and time of year, "dawn or dusk" can constitute your entire observing window. So this doesn't really make things better. (4) all of these mitigations should be done before companies can start doing ~10,000 satellite launches. The only reason this isn't done is outdated legislation that never conceived of this being possible.