3 ms·

Isn't all of this orbital junk kind of dangerous for space missions and interferes with astronomical instruments here on earth?

trident5000 5y ago
I would keep asking that question even though they probably know what they're doing with that issue.
Robotbeat 5y ago
Not in SpaceX’s case. The satellites are in low enough orbit to deorbit themselves naturally if they fail, although they do so faster if using onboard thrusters at end of life. Any debris caused by failure is also likely to deorbit quickly. Not true for higher orbits, like 800km or above. As far as being visible to sensitive telescopes, that is true, but also not surprising. Telescopes are designed to detect really faint things, so even though Starlink is now almost always darker than the visible limit once fully deployed in operational orbit, it can still show up in sensitive astronomical surveys.
- cududa 5y ago
  The routes are published, I don’t see the big deal of removing a few frames from the composite shot when one fly’s over. “It’s hard” does not seem like a valid excuse to deny internet to the underserved. Plus, I looked through the manual for the most widely used telescope compositor and it supports tracking published satellite trajectories and automatically dropping the frames when a satellites overhead. It seemed a bit tedious to set up, but the GUI of most of the thing looked positively 1997
  - jimmaswell 5y ago
    It's not like we haven't had airplanes in the sky for a while too. Curious people never complain about those getting in the way of their pretty pictures.
    - oscardssmith 5y ago
      a lot of that is probably because planes usually fly during the day, and most of the over night ones are flying over oceans.
      - sqs 5y ago
        Maybe they fly more during the day, but there are tons of red-eye flights over land, plus cargo flights, etc. Check out https://www.flightradar24.com/ https://www.flightradar24.com/ in the middle of the night.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
    Most of the complaints are from astronomers, who aren't taking composite shots, they're taking actual long exposures. Then the repeated passes add up in the exposure.
    - cududa 5y ago
      The long exposure is stitched together digitally. You can remove the offending frames
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
LatteLazy 5y ago
Not really. Image how many cars there on earths surface. But the earth is far from covered in cars. The surface area of even just geostationary orbit is much bigger, and there are a lot fewer satellites.
supperburg 5y ago
I think there’s a big difference between the satellites making little dark spots in the sky and making faint bright spots. Maybe not. Either way I don’t think it’s a problem. If they can cancel out the turbulence of the atmosphere, they can cancel out whatever signal the satellites introduce. But that’s optical. I wonder if having all that metal up there would interfere with radio astronomy?

trident5000 5y ago

I would keep asking that question even though they probably know what they're doing with that issue.

Robotbeat 5y ago

Not in SpaceX’s case. The satellites are in low enough orbit to deorbit themselves naturally if they fail, although they do so faster if using onboard thrusters at end of life. Any debris caused by failure is also likely to deorbit quickly. Not true for higher orbits, like 800km or above. As far as being visible to sensitive telescopes, that is true, but also not surprising. Telescopes are designed to detect really faint things, so even though Starlink is now almost always darker than the visible limit once fully deployed in operational orbit, it can still show up in sensitive astronomical surveys.

cududa 5y ago
The routes are published, I don’t see the big deal of removing a few frames from the composite shot when one fly’s over. “It’s hard” does not seem like a valid excuse to deny internet to the underserved. Plus, I looked through the manual for the most widely used telescope compositor and it supports tracking published satellite trajectories and automatically dropping the frames when a satellites overhead. It seemed a bit tedious to set up, but the GUI of most of the thing looked positively 1997
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  It's not like we haven't had airplanes in the sky for a while too. Curious people never complain about those getting in the way of their pretty pictures.
  - oscardssmith 5y ago
    a lot of that is probably because planes usually fly during the day, and most of the over night ones are flying over oceans.
    - sqs 5y ago
      Maybe they fly more during the day, but there are tons of red-eye flights over land, plus cargo flights, etc. Check out https://www.flightradar24.com/ https://www.flightradar24.com/ in the middle of the night.
- SAI_Peregrinus 5y ago
  Most of the complaints are from astronomers, who aren't taking composite shots, they're taking actual long exposures. Then the repeated passes add up in the exposure.
  - cududa 5y ago
    The long exposure is stitched together digitally. You can remove the offending frames

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

LatteLazy 5y ago

Not really. Image how many cars there on earths surface. But the earth is far from covered in cars. The surface area of even just geostationary orbit is much bigger, and there are a lot fewer satellites.

supperburg 5y ago

I think there’s a big difference between the satellites making little dark spots in the sky and making faint bright spots. Maybe not. Either way I don’t think it’s a problem. If they can cancel out the turbulence of the atmosphere, they can cancel out whatever signal the satellites introduce. But that’s optical. I wonder if having all that metal up there would interfere with radio astronomy?