4 ms·

More beautiful than the stars and galaxies they're blotting out? I hear this and it's like someone admiring the engineering of a cloverleaf exchange running ov

More beautiful than the stars and galaxies they're blotting out? I hear this and it's like someone admiring the engineering of a cloverleaf exchange running over a buried river.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
> More beautiful than the stars and galaxies they're blotting out? Very much yes! Stars and galaxies are. They are as they always[0] were, and always will be. Blobs of fusing hydrogen very far away. As beautiful as they may be if we could see them better, from where we are, they're just points of light. (Also, wait a few seconds, the satellites will pass, and you're back to watching the stars behind.) A constellation of satellites in the sky is also just a bunch of points of light. But it's more than that. It means something. Humans have put it there. Those satellites serve a purpose, and their appearance on the night sky reminds us of the great discoveries and feats of engineering that were necessary to put them there. They're a testament to the ingenuity and potential of mankind, and the promise that one day, our descendants will travel among them. That's what I see when I see a satellite passing overhead. > it's like someone admiring the engineering of a cloverleaf exchange running over a buried river Sure, it's exactly that. A cloverleaf exchange is interesting. It's not something that just happens, and its shape is not random. A river is boring. Also full of insects that try to feast on your blood. I'm totally serious, by the way. Ever since a kid, I've found nature boring. This actually changed for me in my adulthood - my interest in biology sparked when I realized that life is just molecular nanotechnology that wasn't designed by humans, but could still be eventually understood and controlled. -- [0] - On human-relevant timescales.
- AprilArcus 5y ago
  > A cloverleaf exchange is interesting. It's not something that just happens, and its shape is not random. A river is boring. Also full of insects that try to feast on your blood. The universe of knowledge one could obtain from studying the organisms and ecological connections in a healthy wetland ecosystem or the physics of stars and galaxies and supernovas and black holes and brown dwarfs is vaster by orders of magnitude than what could be won by marveling at highways and satellite trains.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    That's correct and I agree. But you were asking about watching things, not studying them in depth :).
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >Stars and galaxies are. They are as they always[0] were, and always will be >[0] - On human-relevant timescales. This was once orthodoxy, but it was overturned ~450 years ago, at least from a Eurocentric perspective. - If you look at millions of objects, then something that only happens to each one, once in X million years, will be happening to one of them right now. Like a nova. - If you look at millions of objects, then you will see the one-in-a-million rare one which is doing something on a human timescale. Like a pulsar.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Fair enough. Not something you can spot with a naked eye, though. In this sense, when I'm looking at the night sky, I find satellites more interesting than stars. (My favorite thing to spot were always Iridium flares. I miss those.)
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      Visible supernovas are rare, but there was one in 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A Here is the Wikipedia page for the star that died over 30 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanduleak_-69_202 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanduleak_-69_202 You can see meteors all the time. A bit of trivia I read somewhere is that your spot on the earth is facing more "into the wind" the later it gets after midnight, so that's when it's best to look for them. Usually meteors are just streaks of light, but once I went partway up a mountain for a forecasted meteor shower and I saw one just like people render it for an illustration (except much smaller because of the distance) - you could see it was a white hot fireball, shading to red, shading to blue, with a long bluish tail.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
The trains are only visible within a half hour of sunrise & sunset, when those stars and galaxies aren't particularly visible due to incident sunlight. If you want to see the stars and galaxies, look up at midnight when Starlink isn't illuminated by the sun. It was the best view before & after Starlink.
- garciasn 5y ago
  Naw. Sunset was 8:35 PM and the sat trains were overhead after 10 PM.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    The half an hour is an approximation depending on latitude and season. The point is that Starlink is not visible to the naked eye without illumination, and being so close to the Earth they are shadowed by the earth most of the night. What's your latitude?
    - garciasn 5y ago
      N44/45.
_Microft 5y ago
> More beautiful than the stars and galaxies they're blotting out? At that moment, yes, absolutely. As I said, I understand the concerns and as with everything else, too much of it is going to be bad but during this moment I talked about it was absolutely wonderful.

More beautiful than the stars and galaxies they're blotting out? I hear this and it's like someone admiring the engineering of a cloverleaf exchange running over a buried river.

TeMPOraL 5y ago

> More beautiful than the stars and galaxies they're blotting out? Very much yes! Stars and galaxies are. They are as they always[0] were, and always will be. Blobs of fusing hydrogen very far away. As beautiful as they may be if we could see them better, from where we are, they're just points of light. (Also, wait a few seconds, the satellites will pass, and you're back to watching the stars behind.) A constellation of satellites in the sky is also just a bunch of points of light. But it's more than that. It means something. Humans have put it there. Those satellites serve a purpose, and their appearance on the night sky reminds us of the great discoveries and feats of engineering that were necessary to put them there. They're a testament to the ingenuity and potential of mankind, and the promise that one day, our descendants will travel among them. That's what I see when I see a satellite passing overhead. > it's like someone admiring the engineering of a cloverleaf exchange running over a buried river Sure, it's exactly that. A cloverleaf exchange is interesting. It's not something that just happens, and its shape is not random. A river is boring. Also full of insects that try to feast on your blood. I'm totally serious, by the way. Ever since a kid, I've found nature boring. This actually changed for me in my adulthood - my interest in biology sparked when I realized that life is just molecular nanotechnology that wasn't designed by humans, but could still be eventually understood and controlled. -- [0] - On human-relevant timescales.

AprilArcus 5y ago
> A cloverleaf exchange is interesting. It's not something that just happens, and its shape is not random. A river is boring. Also full of insects that try to feast on your blood. The universe of knowledge one could obtain from studying the organisms and ecological connections in a healthy wetland ecosystem or the physics of stars and galaxies and supernovas and black holes and brown dwarfs is vaster by orders of magnitude than what could be won by marveling at highways and satellite trains.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  That's correct and I agree. But you were asking about watching things, not studying them in depth :).
perl4ever 5y ago
>Stars and galaxies are. They are as they always[0] were, and always will be >[0] - On human-relevant timescales. This was once orthodoxy, but it was overturned ~450 years ago, at least from a Eurocentric perspective. - If you look at millions of objects, then something that only happens to each one, once in X million years, will be happening to one of them right now. Like a nova. - If you look at millions of objects, then you will see the one-in-a-million rare one which is doing something on a human timescale. Like a pulsar.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Fair enough. Not something you can spot with a naked eye, though. In this sense, when I'm looking at the night sky, I find satellites more interesting than stars. (My favorite thing to spot were always Iridium flares. I miss those.)
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Visible supernovas are rare, but there was one in 1987. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A Here is the Wikipedia page for the star that died over 30 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanduleak_-69_202 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanduleak_-69_202 You can see meteors all the time. A bit of trivia I read somewhere is that your spot on the earth is facing more "into the wind" the later it gets after midnight, so that's when it's best to look for them. Usually meteors are just streaks of light, but once I went partway up a mountain for a forecasted meteor shower and I saw one just like people render it for an illustration (except much smaller because of the distance) - you could see it was a white hot fireball, shading to red, shading to blue, with a long bluish tail.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

The trains are only visible within a half hour of sunrise & sunset, when those stars and galaxies aren't particularly visible due to incident sunlight. If you want to see the stars and galaxies, look up at midnight when Starlink isn't illuminated by the sun. It was the best view before & after Starlink.

garciasn 5y ago
Naw. Sunset was 8:35 PM and the sat trains were overhead after 10 PM.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  The half an hour is an approximation depending on latitude and season. The point is that Starlink is not visible to the naked eye without illumination, and being so close to the Earth they are shadowed by the earth most of the night. What's your latitude?
  - garciasn 5y ago
    N44/45.

_Microft 5y ago

> More beautiful than the stars and galaxies they're blotting out? At that moment, yes, absolutely. As I said, I understand the concerns and as with everything else, too much of it is going to be bad but during this moment I talked about it was absolutely wonderful.