5 ms·

We are polluting our night skies and dark places.

Diederich 5y ago
Go outside this evening if the sky is clear. If you're anywhere between 30 degrees and 60 degrees, there are multiple starlink satellites in your line of sight all the time. Can you point them out? No, they're invisible at their operational altitude.
- User23 5y ago
  That depends on how dark the area is. I heard that in a Bortle 5 or lower area they are naked eye visible, which really sucks for stargazers. Especially since some of the more interesting naked eye observations have to be done using peripheral vision.
  - Diederich 5y ago
    I've been unable to see them in class 2 areas. I'm a pretty ardent stargazer.
    - User23 5y ago
      It sounds like your visual acuity might not be that great. Sadly, enthusiasm can’t overcome physical limitations.
  - Diederich 5y ago
    I know that these sats will affect many telescopic observations, but that's been happening a long time. I understand that this interference will end up being several times more frequent. However, for many years, satellite streaks have been algorithmically removed from observations. It's possible that those algorithms will need to be upgraded. That's a small price to pay in exchange for robust and high speed Internet becoming available to huge numbers of people all over the world.
    - User23 5y ago
      I have a Starlink deposit down and I still have my doubts about the merits of that trade-off. My reasoning is amateur astronomy is ruined anyhow so I may as well be able to stream Netflix on more devices and as a side benefit tech monopolies will be able to further extend their influence. Which, frankly, feels rather sordid. And in any event Starlink is nothing compared to the assholes planning satellite billboards.
      - Diederich 5y ago
        The real good that will come out of Starlink isn't from people like you and I, it'll be from people very poor countries and regions. The money you and I put into it are bootstrapping bringing Internet access to hundreds of millions who would otherwise not get it.
        m4rtink 5y ago
        Not to mention Starlink also indirectly funding Starship, the first realistic attempt on a full RLV. That in itself is HUGE and can bring immeasurable good in the future by opening acces to space for many.
  - mlindner 5y ago
    In what location can you see naked eye visibility down to 6th magnitude? You must have really good eyes.
    - User23 5y ago
      In the 19th century before light pollution naked eye observers managed well into the 7s.
- Causality1 5y ago
  Even if they weren't, we can't have everything. Do you know how crippled a huge chunk of the world's population is without robust internet access? I have two telescopes in my house and I would give up looking at the sky forever if it meant my cousin's kids got to attend Zoom class instead of having to work from take-home materials.
  - Diederich 5y ago
    Exactly. This is akin to people complaining about how wind mills ruin their views of things. I know that these sats will affect many telescopic observations, but that's been happening a long time. In most cases, satellite streaks are algorithmically removed.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    Your country doesn't seem to deploy infrastructure You've likely got mains power and probably water (Sure I know some places are off the grid competely, but it's rare). Why don't those cables have fibre along side them to connect you.
    - martin8412 5y ago
      Because, gasp, they might be paying for something that would benefit others more than themselves. The US is the world's richest 3rd world country.
  - martin8412 5y ago
    The US is not the world. The US could have invested in their infrastructure, but they don't want to. Starship is a solution to an American problem.
    - Causality1 5y ago
      Assuming you mean Starlink, what makes you think poor internet availability is a uniquely American problem? 13.4 percent of American households don't have internet access, compared to 10 percent of Europeans and 44.9 percent of households in Asia.
Kiro 5y ago
So what? What is the higher purpose of not "polluting" the night sky?
- anonyxyz 5y ago
  It's introducing a fuck ton of low orbit debris that is already interfering with astronomical research. Satellites that fail or break are stuck up there.
  - vultour 5y ago
    Defunct low orbit satellites are not a giant issue as they deorbit relatively quickly.
walrus01 5y ago
I'm far more concerned about atmospheric particles (as measured by PM2.5, etc) and air pollution than I am about satellites. Go visit New Delhi or Lahore in mid winter and give us your subjective opinion of the air quality. https://www.google.com/search?q=delhi+air+pollution&client=ubuntu&hs=xEs&channel=fs&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=delhi+air+pollution&client=u...

Go outside this evening if the sky is clear. If you're anywhere between 30 degrees and 60 degrees, there are multiple starlink satellites in your line of sight all the time. Can you point them out? No, they're invisible at their operational altitude.

User23 5y ago
That depends on how dark the area is. I heard that in a Bortle 5 or lower area they are naked eye visible, which really sucks for stargazers. Especially since some of the more interesting naked eye observations have to be done using peripheral vision.
- Diederich 5y ago
  I've been unable to see them in class 2 areas. I'm a pretty ardent stargazer.
  - User23 5y ago
    It sounds like your visual acuity might not be that great. Sadly, enthusiasm can’t overcome physical limitations.
- Diederich 5y ago
  I know that these sats will affect many telescopic observations, but that's been happening a long time. I understand that this interference will end up being several times more frequent. However, for many years, satellite streaks have been algorithmically removed from observations. It's possible that those algorithms will need to be upgraded. That's a small price to pay in exchange for robust and high speed Internet becoming available to huge numbers of people all over the world.
  - User23 5y ago
    I have a Starlink deposit down and I still have my doubts about the merits of that trade-off. My reasoning is amateur astronomy is ruined anyhow so I may as well be able to stream Netflix on more devices and as a side benefit tech monopolies will be able to further extend their influence. Which, frankly, feels rather sordid. And in any event Starlink is nothing compared to the assholes planning satellite billboards.
    - Diederich 5y ago
      The real good that will come out of Starlink isn't from people like you and I, it'll be from people very poor countries and regions. The money you and I put into it are bootstrapping bringing Internet access to hundreds of millions who would otherwise not get it.
      - m4rtink 5y ago
        Not to mention Starlink also indirectly funding Starship, the first realistic attempt on a full RLV. That in itself is HUGE and can bring immeasurable good in the future by opening acces to space for many.
- mlindner 5y ago
  In what location can you see naked eye visibility down to 6th magnitude? You must have really good eyes.
  - User23 5y ago
    In the 19th century before light pollution naked eye observers managed well into the 7s.
Causality1 5y ago
Even if they weren't, we can't have everything. Do you know how crippled a huge chunk of the world's population is without robust internet access? I have two telescopes in my house and I would give up looking at the sky forever if it meant my cousin's kids got to attend Zoom class instead of having to work from take-home materials.
- Diederich 5y ago
  Exactly. This is akin to people complaining about how wind mills ruin their views of things. I know that these sats will affect many telescopic observations, but that's been happening a long time. In most cases, satellite streaks are algorithmically removed.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Your country doesn't seem to deploy infrastructure You've likely got mains power and probably water (Sure I know some places are off the grid competely, but it's rare). Why don't those cables have fibre along side them to connect you.
  - martin8412 5y ago
    Because, gasp, they might be paying for something that would benefit others more than themselves. The US is the world's richest 3rd world country.
- martin8412 5y ago
  The US is not the world. The US could have invested in their infrastructure, but they don't want to. Starship is a solution to an American problem.
  - Causality1 5y ago
    Assuming you mean Starlink, what makes you think poor internet availability is a uniquely American problem? 13.4 percent of American households don't have internet access, compared to 10 percent of Europeans and 44.9 percent of households in Asia.

Kiro 5y ago

So what? What is the higher purpose of not "polluting" the night sky?

anonyxyz 5y ago
It's introducing a fuck ton of low orbit debris that is already interfering with astronomical research. Satellites that fail or break are stuck up there.
- vultour 5y ago
  Defunct low orbit satellites are not a giant issue as they deorbit relatively quickly.

walrus01 5y ago

I'm far more concerned about atmospheric particles (as measured by PM2.5, etc) and air pollution than I am about satellites. Go visit New Delhi or Lahore in mid winter and give us your subjective opinion of the air quality. https://www.google.com/search?q=delhi+air+pollution&client=ubuntu&hs=xEs&channel=fs&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=delhi+air+pollution&client=u...