6 ms·

This is really required. I do some amateur astrophotography in India where Starlink is not even operational yet and have already seen their satellites in my lon

This is really required. I do some amateur astrophotography in India where Starlink is not even operational yet and have already seen their satellites in my long exposures a couple times. Light pollution from the ground already ruins this wonderful hobby (and stargazing) for so many around the world, adding sky based pollution on top of that would be truly terrible. I recognise all the benefits these satellite constellations provide us, but at what cost?

Retric 5y ago
LEO satellites like StarLink are in earths shadow most of the night. Which means you can avoid unlimited satellites, you just need to wait longer to start and end well before dawn.
- asaddhamani 5y ago
  I have seen StarLink satellites with my naked eye many times and confirmed with the Dark Sky app, past midnight as well.
  - Retric 5y ago
    For astronomy, aim up. The closer to the horizon the longer their visible before and after sunset. The sky rotates at night and at different times of the year so the overwhelming majority of things are still observable without any satellites. Also, this is almost exclusively about about wide angel shots. You can still do ultra long exposure closeups of various things, at worse you might need to cover the shutter for a few seconds while a satellite moves into and out of the shot but even that’s generally avoidable.
    - asaddhamani 5y ago
      But what if something I want to click is near the horizon? For example trying to get a shot of the sky with mountains in the frame. Avoiding the parts where the satellites are is not a viable solution most of the times.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        Use Photoshop. Look I appreciate that astronomers, whether professional or hobbyists, may be inconvenienced by more satellites. But the odds that the public/governments will prioritize this over potentially much better rural broadband connectivity is approximately zero.
      - Retric 5y ago
        I agree it’s an going to show up in nighttime photography. You need better timing, manually remove them from photos, or take extra shots etc. I am simply saying it’s not a major impediment for amateur Astronomy as you can time things to capture a clean picture of most objects as long as you time them so their above the horizon. Also, if you want to aim for a mountain in long exposure all the stars are going to be smeared in the photo. If it’s short exposure their going to look like just another star.
    - petschge 5y ago
      Things rotating up is only true for stuff that is close to the Eastern or Western horizon. And yes different times of the year help a lot, but there is plenty of objects that are only visible a bit over the horizon at the best of times. Source: have help a radio astronomer with source visibility calculations.
      - Retric 5y ago
        Sure, and Polaris is never visible from Australia etc. But, it’s a much weaker argument to say these constellations limit observations by less than 10%. The reality is there is real impact, but no where near as bad as many generally portrayed. Imagine some senator canceling funding for new ground based telescopes because they heard these satellites would render them useless.
        petschge 5y ago
        I have heard astronomers estimating it at up to 30% of the observing time for existing optical telescopes. Note that this is the instrument class that has t to 20 times as many proposals as they can actually observe.
        Retric 5y ago
        Yep, and others say it’s less than 1%. Neither of them are lying, but their talking about different kinds of observations. My assumption is scheduling should solve most of these issues in terms of large instruments.
- djkorchi 5y ago
  Professional astronomers observe during the daytime too, using radio or microwave. Mega-constellations impinge on their ability to do science, especially for techniques like VLBI, where there's no obvious way to remove satellites from the data.
  - Retric 5y ago
    That applies to all satellites not simply large arrays. Large constellations all on the same frequencies aren’t even close to 1:1 as bad as normal satellites.
zionic 5y ago
Starship is going to launch the equivalent of 1000 Hubble’s with 10 years. You’re thinking too small, this constellation is part of what enables you to someday go to space yourself and have your own observatory on the dark side of the moon etc.
- yunohn 5y ago
  Ah yes, the Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire theory, but for astronomy. How amazing!
  - cryptoz 5y ago
    Not really...Either Starlink and the rest fail, and the skies clear up again shortly as failed projects get de-orbited. Or they succeed and there will be many established bases in space for research and telescopes. It's not like the funds from Starlink are going to be used to build casinos in the desert or something. Every $ earned is going back into building better space tech. So if it fails no problem for space views from Earth, and if it succeeds the result is cheap access to space views from space.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      Could you link to any sources that claim Starlink profits will be used to facilitate astronomy research? Quite an absurd assumption without proof tbh.
      - cryptoz 5y ago
        First, I never said that. Please read my comment again. Second, Starlink exists to fund the start of a permanent self-sustaining colony of millions of people on Mars. I'm not sure how they would get to that without also doing and supporting a lot of astronomy research along the way.
        yunohn 5y ago
        Your assumptions continue but to be unsupported by sources, but rather, blind fanboyism. Do you have proof that Starlink profits will go towards funding a Mars colony? Or that research into astronomical observations will be required for building a space colony? Or even if so, the overlap somehow helps astronomers on earth?
WhompingWindows 5y ago
What is a higher priority: astronomers' imaging or rural internet access?
- guerrilla 5y ago
  That's a subjective question. Different people value different things and have differing preferences and priorities. At best, it depends on our goals. This is why these things need to be dealt with publicly and democratically.
  - sumedh 5y ago
    > That's a subjective question. Its not subjective question though, lot things (including working with the govt services) are moving online even in India. Having reasonably good internet connectivity is now a necessity.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      First, if a state requires internet connectivity then it's their responsibility to provide it. Second, just because somone's being forced to need something doesn't mean they don't ultimately value something else more. Third, even valuing your survival over destruction of the commons is a subjective preference, so yeah, it's always subjective. Anyway, this all needs to be worked out demoratically with all information and options, not by authoritarians forcing limited choices onto people.
      - sumedh 5y ago
        > if a state requires internet connectivity then it's their responsibility to provide it. That sounds good on paper but it does now work like that in real life, in India or the US people who live far away from metro regions, providing connectivity is not an important topic for getting votes so you wont see politicians fighting for it. So Democracy is not going to solve that. I dont know about you but if there is a question about my survival then its not subjective to me, maybe you dont value your life but I do.
sebzim4500 5y ago
> but at what cost? A decent portion of exposures will have to be thrown out, and some types of sky surveys will only be possible from space.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  That isn’t strictly true. There are changes to the design of the instrument that the makers could’ve incorporated that would be better at dealing with the effects of satellite trails which has been a thing since Sputnik. They chose not to implement that capability, even though satellite constellations and proposed mega constellations have been a thing since well before Vera Rubin was designed.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
> at what cost? Amateur astrophotography?

Retric 5y ago

LEO satellites like StarLink are in earths shadow most of the night. Which means you can avoid unlimited satellites, you just need to wait longer to start and end well before dawn.

asaddhamani 5y ago
I have seen StarLink satellites with my naked eye many times and confirmed with the Dark Sky app, past midnight as well.
- Retric 5y ago
  For astronomy, aim up. The closer to the horizon the longer their visible before and after sunset. The sky rotates at night and at different times of the year so the overwhelming majority of things are still observable without any satellites. Also, this is almost exclusively about about wide angel shots. You can still do ultra long exposure closeups of various things, at worse you might need to cover the shutter for a few seconds while a satellite moves into and out of the shot but even that’s generally avoidable.
  - asaddhamani 5y ago
    But what if something I want to click is near the horizon? For example trying to get a shot of the sky with mountains in the frame. Avoiding the parts where the satellites are is not a viable solution most of the times.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Use Photoshop. Look I appreciate that astronomers, whether professional or hobbyists, may be inconvenienced by more satellites. But the odds that the public/governments will prioritize this over potentially much better rural broadband connectivity is approximately zero.
    - Retric 5y ago
      I agree it’s an going to show up in nighttime photography. You need better timing, manually remove them from photos, or take extra shots etc. I am simply saying it’s not a major impediment for amateur Astronomy as you can time things to capture a clean picture of most objects as long as you time them so their above the horizon. Also, if you want to aim for a mountain in long exposure all the stars are going to be smeared in the photo. If it’s short exposure their going to look like just another star.
  - petschge 5y ago
    Things rotating up is only true for stuff that is close to the Eastern or Western horizon. And yes different times of the year help a lot, but there is plenty of objects that are only visible a bit over the horizon at the best of times. Source: have help a radio astronomer with source visibility calculations.
    - Retric 5y ago
      Sure, and Polaris is never visible from Australia etc. But, it’s a much weaker argument to say these constellations limit observations by less than 10%. The reality is there is real impact, but no where near as bad as many generally portrayed. Imagine some senator canceling funding for new ground based telescopes because they heard these satellites would render them useless.
      - petschge 5y ago
        I have heard astronomers estimating it at up to 30% of the observing time for existing optical telescopes. Note that this is the instrument class that has t to 20 times as many proposals as they can actually observe.
        Retric 5y ago
        Yep, and others say it’s less than 1%. Neither of them are lying, but their talking about different kinds of observations. My assumption is scheduling should solve most of these issues in terms of large instruments.
djkorchi 5y ago
Professional astronomers observe during the daytime too, using radio or microwave. Mega-constellations impinge on their ability to do science, especially for techniques like VLBI, where there's no obvious way to remove satellites from the data.
- Retric 5y ago
  That applies to all satellites not simply large arrays. Large constellations all on the same frequencies aren’t even close to 1:1 as bad as normal satellites.

zionic 5y ago

Starship is going to launch the equivalent of 1000 Hubble’s with 10 years. You’re thinking too small, this constellation is part of what enables you to someday go to space yourself and have your own observatory on the dark side of the moon etc.

yunohn 5y ago
Ah yes, the Temporarily Embarrassed Millionaire theory, but for astronomy. How amazing!
- cryptoz 5y ago
  Not really...Either Starlink and the rest fail, and the skies clear up again shortly as failed projects get de-orbited. Or they succeed and there will be many established bases in space for research and telescopes. It's not like the funds from Starlink are going to be used to build casinos in the desert or something. Every $ earned is going back into building better space tech. So if it fails no problem for space views from Earth, and if it succeeds the result is cheap access to space views from space.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    Could you link to any sources that claim Starlink profits will be used to facilitate astronomy research? Quite an absurd assumption without proof tbh.
    - cryptoz 5y ago
      First, I never said that. Please read my comment again. Second, Starlink exists to fund the start of a permanent self-sustaining colony of millions of people on Mars. I'm not sure how they would get to that without also doing and supporting a lot of astronomy research along the way.
      - yunohn 5y ago
        Your assumptions continue but to be unsupported by sources, but rather, blind fanboyism. Do you have proof that Starlink profits will go towards funding a Mars colony? Or that research into astronomical observations will be required for building a space colony? Or even if so, the overlap somehow helps astronomers on earth?

WhompingWindows 5y ago

What is a higher priority: astronomers' imaging or rural internet access?

guerrilla 5y ago
That's a subjective question. Different people value different things and have differing preferences and priorities. At best, it depends on our goals. This is why these things need to be dealt with publicly and democratically.
- sumedh 5y ago
  > That's a subjective question. Its not subjective question though, lot things (including working with the govt services) are moving online even in India. Having reasonably good internet connectivity is now a necessity.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    First, if a state requires internet connectivity then it's their responsibility to provide it. Second, just because somone's being forced to need something doesn't mean they don't ultimately value something else more. Third, even valuing your survival over destruction of the commons is a subjective preference, so yeah, it's always subjective. Anyway, this all needs to be worked out demoratically with all information and options, not by authoritarians forcing limited choices onto people.
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > if a state requires internet connectivity then it's their responsibility to provide it. That sounds good on paper but it does now work like that in real life, in India or the US people who live far away from metro regions, providing connectivity is not an important topic for getting votes so you wont see politicians fighting for it. So Democracy is not going to solve that. I dont know about you but if there is a question about my survival then its not subjective to me, maybe you dont value your life but I do.

sebzim4500 5y ago

> but at what cost? A decent portion of exposures will have to be thrown out, and some types of sky surveys will only be possible from space.

Robotbeat 5y ago
That isn’t strictly true. There are changes to the design of the instrument that the makers could’ve incorporated that would be better at dealing with the effects of satellite trails which has been a thing since Sputnik. They chose not to implement that capability, even though satellite constellations and proposed mega constellations have been a thing since well before Vera Rubin was designed.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

> at what cost? Amateur astrophotography?