3 ms·

Someone is eventually going to get a clue that you either do the SLS model (which is all about milking the compliance / regulation space for every nickle), or y

Someone is eventually going to get a clue that you either do the SLS model (which is all about milking the compliance / regulation space for every nickle), or you have an engineering first approach (which pushes back on bogus crap). SpaceX has CLEARLY chosen the latter. My guess is as in most cases like this, they will clean up, and eventually even the govt agencies they are fighting with will start to use them more and more. In terms of astronomy, again, you have a fight between a group of cant-do-ers and what will likely be a future group of can do ers who will launch a fleet of space based instruments that will absolutely crush ground based observations. They should track the complainers here and shut them off from that future funding for space based options. My one big hope is that the FAA actually have some real domain experts in space launch and risk management there - physics etc etc. They have that on flight side , not sure about space side.

zelon88 5y ago
We have space based astronomy (Chandra, Hubble, ect...). There are more missions with expanded capabilities on the horizon. However they do not negate the value of a ground based system. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive in a screw in the same way you wouldn't use Hubble to look at the surface of the Moon. [1] Disclaimer: I work on the Chandra team but I am not an astrophysicist. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-reasons-why-astronomy-is-better-from-the-ground-than-in-space/?sh=37b8848f48f8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-re...
- slownews45 5y ago
  The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. It's become clear that at least the folks making the news are not going to be innovating. The cost reduction in space access represented by starlink should be a wake up a call to someone somewhere to think about could be done by embracing the SpaceX approach. I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space.
  - zelon88 5y ago
    > The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. The same could be said of Starlink by astronomers. Or regulators. Just because Starlink is doing something noble does not make them above the law. There are firms developing advanced cancer treatments; that does not mean they can perform human trials at will. > I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. Your attitude is very dismissive. Astronomy is one of the oldest and most significant fields in science. When you look at a subject as topically as you are, of course nothing makes sense. I know how to drive a car. Does that make me qualified to fly an airplane, too? You claim to respect subject matter experts yet you are quick to question astronomers as experts of their field. > And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space. Again, I am, not an astronomer, but casual thought reveals a few potential reasons. 1) tracking fast moving objects with a spacecraft is extremely difficult. 2) cost 3) reliability 4) communication contention (many missions use leased satellite time for communications), ect. The interesting part is you are very mindful when it comes to how SpaceX should behave, but very dismissive about anything else.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. Your experience with photography under ordinary lighting conditions is mostly irrelevant here. There are good reasons why serious astrophotography involves carefully calibrated tracking mounts and individual exposures lasting anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes. > The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. Stacking multiple exposures is already standard procedure; single-exposure astrophotos are relatively rare. Total exposure time for faint deep sky objects is often measured in hours, with exposures sometimes collected over the course of several nights. Each exposure adds a bit of noise, however, which cannot be eliminated even with our best post-processing algorithms. For the same total exposure time the quality will be noticeable worse when using a larger number of short exposures vs. a smaller number of long exposures. Also, do not forget that there is more to astrophotography than merely making pretty pictures. The data is also used to measure brightness & composition (using filters for spectography) and to identify new objects, which are often very faint and easily overwhelmed by noise. The more post-processing you need to apply the harder it becomes to achieve scientifically significant results. I am not opposed to StarLink myself, but I do sympathize with the astronomer's concerns and hope that future improvements to the designs will mitigate the impact that the satellite constellations have on the scientific community—both amateur and professional.
sschueller 5y ago
The FAA here also has to make sure the US is conforming the the international agreements regarding space flight. This does not only affect the US like a flyover maneuver at some local airport.

zelon88 5y ago

We have space based astronomy (Chandra, Hubble, ect...). There are more missions with expanded capabilities on the horizon. However they do not negate the value of a ground based system. You wouldn't use a hammer to drive in a screw in the same way you wouldn't use Hubble to look at the surface of the Moon. [1] Disclaimer: I work on the Chandra team but I am not an astrophysicist. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-reasons-why-astronomy-is-better-from-the-ground-than-in-space/?sh=37b8848f48f8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/22/5-re...

slownews45 5y ago
The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. It's become clear that at least the folks making the news are not going to be innovating. The cost reduction in space access represented by starlink should be a wake up a call to someone somewhere to think about could be done by embracing the SpaceX approach. I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space.
- zelon88 5y ago
  > The issue is the harm being described in apocalyptic terms by the astro community is not being weighed properly against the benefits to 1) humanity 2) astronomy in longer run. The same could be said of Starlink by astronomers. Or regulators. Just because Starlink is doing something noble does not make them above the law. There are firms developing advanced cancer treatments; that does not mean they can perform human trials at will. > I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. I get the some things with ultra long integration times may not be able to take that approach, but again, the apparent helplessness of astronomers to manage even basic steps is revealing. Your attitude is very dismissive. Astronomy is one of the oldest and most significant fields in science. When you look at a subject as topically as you are, of course nothing makes sense. I know how to drive a car. Does that make me qualified to fly an airplane, too? You claim to respect subject matter experts yet you are quick to question astronomers as experts of their field. > And then - why not consider what could be gained by looking at things in a new way from space? The physics is almost always better up there for looking at other stars and space. Again, I am, not an astronomer, but casual thought reveals a few potential reasons. 1) tracking fast moving objects with a spacecraft is extremely difficult. 2) cost 3) reliability 4) communication contention (many missions use leased satellite time for communications), ect. The interesting part is you are very mindful when it comes to how SpaceX should behave, but very dismissive about anything else.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > I'm not an astronomer, but I am a photographer. Your experience with photography under ordinary lighting conditions is mostly irrelevant here. There are good reasons why serious astrophotography involves carefully calibrated tracking mounts and individual exposures lasting anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes. > The fact that astronomers shoot these ridiculous shots showing insane streaks across their photos makes no sense. I could eliminate those trivially with a multi-exposure process for the types of photos being shown. Stacking multiple exposures is already standard procedure; single-exposure astrophotos are relatively rare. Total exposure time for faint deep sky objects is often measured in hours, with exposures sometimes collected over the course of several nights. Each exposure adds a bit of noise, however, which cannot be eliminated even with our best post-processing algorithms. For the same total exposure time the quality will be noticeable worse when using a larger number of short exposures vs. a smaller number of long exposures. Also, do not forget that there is more to astrophotography than merely making pretty pictures. The data is also used to measure brightness & composition (using filters for spectography) and to identify new objects, which are often very faint and easily overwhelmed by noise. The more post-processing you need to apply the harder it becomes to achieve scientifically significant results. I am not opposed to StarLink myself, but I do sympathize with the astronomer's concerns and hope that future improvements to the designs will mitigate the impact that the satellite constellations have on the scientific community—both amateur and professional.

sschueller 5y ago

The FAA here also has to make sure the US is conforming the the international agreements regarding space flight. This does not only affect the US like a flyover maneuver at some local airport.