9 ms·

This is why Starlink constellations are so dangerous. They block astronomers from doing astronomy. Every time I point this out there's always someone who pipes

This is why Starlink constellations are so dangerous. They block astronomers from doing astronomy. Every time I point this out there's always someone who pipes in "earth based astronomy is dead". I'll head that off at the pass right here because that's incorrect. So we have space based telescopes. They are very expensive, and the logistics of what they can look at, when they can look at it, and when they can communicate with the ground complicate their operation. Also they have better things to look at. Why build the most powerful and expensive telescope just to point it at the moon which you can see with a $200 telescope from Wal Mart? Earth based astronomy is still a primary source for information. Why limit yourself to half a dozen space based assets when you have countless more on the ground? Save the space based assets for their intended purpose and use earth based assets for nearby objects. When I worked on the Chandra team one of the problems they face is the condition of the shielding on the craft is deteriorating. So even if there were something super interesting to look at, the craft might not be able to look at it if it would be exposed to radiation for too long. Edit: sources [1] https://www.sciencealert.com/the-international-astronomical-union-launches-new-center-to-fight-back-against-starlink-and-other-mega-constellations https://www.sciencealert.com/the-international-astronomical-... [2] https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-rally-to-stop-starlink-and-other-satellite-1848492252 https://gizmodo.com/astronomers-rally-to-stop-starlink-and-o... [3] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac470a https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac470a [4] https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-astronomers-use-software-to-remove-Starlink-satellites-from-long-exposure-photos https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-astronomers-use-software-to-r...

ghaff 5y ago
“So dangerous” Really? Those arguing that LEO internet satellites are an existential threat had better come up with a rural internet alternative if that’s their position. Because internet availability is a genie that’s not going back in the bottle.
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  I’ll see your life-ending existential threat and lower it with the lack of ok-latency, higher-speed internet. This is coming from someone who lives in a rural area without reasonable internet options and is on the Starlink waiting list. I’d rather be alive than have lower-latency connections to Reddit.
- anonymouse008 5y ago
  Rural internet is solvable when public officials prioritize it - what isn't easily solvable is a natural disaster connectivity, which still could be line of sight, mobile, temporary balloons before satellites.
CamperBob2 5y ago
This argument has never made any sense to me. We know where the satellites are. If that's not enough to keep them from interfering with astronomical observations, well, somebody needs to spend less time complaining and more time working on their own tech.
BenjiWiebe 5y ago
StarLink satellites move in known and predictable ways. How does this hinder spotting things that aren't currently known about? There's even other objects in the sky/space that aren't man-made that also move, and most of them we know about as well.
- zelon88 5y ago
  See my reply above with 4 articles describing the problem. 3 of them from the past 3 months.
  - upsidesinclude 5y ago
    You bring up the recency of these articles to bolster your argument, but it is detrimental to your point. Particularly from these sources. Alarmist regurgitation is the standard, popsci-brand churn. If there's a click bait title that is going to drive views they'll print. You might be right. I doubt that. These don't strengthen your position
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      IOP is clickbait popsci? The first link is also mostly quotations from scientists. Did you read the sources linked to?
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  By definition, things we don't know about aren't moving in known and predictable ways, so if you throw out data from X parts of the sky during time period Y you are potentially losing the observations that would help identify a new object
  - bagels 5y ago
    This is a problem solved by taking a few more images. The asteroids aren't moving in synchrony with starlinks.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
My understanding is that artifacts from Starlink are trivial to remove from ground based astronomy datasets. We know what they look like, where they are, and when they transit. do you have other information?
- whatshisface 5y ago
  It is not really possible to remove artifacts from images because there is a degree of randomness in which photons arrive, and even if your model is accurate down to the level of QED, you will not be able to exactly subtract the photon counts.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Im not sure I follow. Im not saying that you subtract photon counts, but void measurements entirely for pixels with satellites in them.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      Telescopes use long exposures. The satellites leave streaks and a lot of pixels would have to be deleted.
      - postalrat 5y ago
        Maybe two telescopes and a bit of math to use the difference in distance to the satellites vs the asteroids?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Long exposures can still have a duration censored. This is digital photography, not chemical. If you expose for 1 million seconds, you can edit out 60 seconds where a satellite passes. That data is forever gone, but you still get the rest of the data from that pixel time.
        5y ago
slibhb 5y ago
Is there any evidence that an asteroid like this would have been detected earlier without Starlink satellites?
SachaMichel 5y ago
I was going to disagree about the impacts of the starlink constellations because the trails can mostly only be seen during twilight (dusk/dawn) observations. However in this case you're 100% right. The Caltech article below states "The streaks are most apparent in so-called twilight observations, those taken at dawn or dusk, which are important for finding near-Earth asteroids that appear close to the sun in the sky. ZTF has discovered several asteroids of this nature, including 2020 AV2, the first asteroid spotted with an orbit that fits entirely within the orbit of Venus. "In 2019, 0.5 percent of twilight images were affected, and now almost 20 percent are affected," says Przemek Mróz, study lead author and a former Caltech postdoctoral scholar who is now at the University of Warsaw in Poland." We may potentially have a serious problem on our hands unless we really ramp up exterrestrial observation, or maybe we won't have a problem, we might just all be dead on impact. Link to article https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument-analyzes-impact-of-starlink-satellites https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument...
- pdonis 5y ago
  > we might just all be dead on impact The asteroids in question are tiny. One of the links in the article under discussion is to a previous article about an asteroid that hit the Earth near Iceland 5 hours after being detected. It was about 3 meters wide. That's way too small to justify worries about global damage on impact.
  - jjulius 5y ago
    What we've found at the last minute so far has been small, but that doesn't mean that the only last-minute discoveries will be small asteroids always and forever.
    - ghaff 5y ago
      As others have said, so what are you going to do about this last minute discovery absent some sort of space-based planetary defense system, in which case this discussion is moot?
b112 5y ago
While I agree with your assessment currently, it is flawed moving forward. The amount of launch capacity we now have, and the massive drop in cost per tonne to orbit, means spaceborn telescopes are cheap now, with the added benefit of no atmosphere. And as costs to launch have dropped, so can costs to build. We don't need to spend loads of cash, since the cost of launch is so cheap, we can just throw a replacement up if it goes bust. In fact, we don't even need telescopes to scan our neighborhood... just loads of smaller video capturing cameras, with excellent zoom lenses. If 10% fail, who cares? It's time to think about proper near earth detection, not the pot luck stuff we've been doing so far. And it's time to think in terms of the launch capacity we have..
- upsidesinclude 5y ago
  Agreed. We have far better tools at our disposal and with a full mesh network of satellites providing optics, we could have an amazing early detection system with total spatial coverage. This is the alarmist pop-sci all the sources are known for pumping out
- leetcrew 5y ago
  what would we do with "proper near earth detection" other than contemplate our impending doom? lowest estimate for lead time to prepare an interception mission is one year, and even still the probability of success is not clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance
jliptzin 5y ago
I am not excusing the problems starlink is causing for astronomers but would a partial solution be to fit a telescope to the back of every starlink satellite which astronomers would have access to?
- ortusdux 5y ago
  A better bet would be to launch a payload of cube imaging satellites. Possibly a partnership with Planet to make a variation of their Doves.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  Starlink satellites are bigger than cubesats but still fairly small, I don't think you're gonna get like a 3m mirror on them. And even if you're able to replicate the capabilities of a subpar optical telescope, the radio astronomers are still SOL
apeace 5y ago
Are you saying that we have a choice between defending ourselves from asteroids, and offering low-latency internet to remote regions? Is there no way to have both? (I know nothing about this.)
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  We could have both, by having also mass produced and launched space telescopes. But who is gonna pay for them?
  - soperj 5y ago
    NASA paid $8.8 billion on just the James Webb. If they wanted to have a mass produced telescope for much cheaper, they could likely pay someone to produce a bunch of them for $8.8 billion. It wouldn't be as capable, but that's probably also not necessary.
- vkou 5y ago
  Actually, since asteroid defense is infeasible with our current capabilities, our options are between relatively low-latency internet to remote regions (and causing headaches for astronomers), and nothing.
  - freemint 5y ago
    Is it infeasible? If we have 9 months to prepare we manage if wel fail to detect it for 8 due to StarLink it is to late. Also StarLink is not for everyone, just for (globally speaking) rich people.
    - vkou 5y ago
      We can't determine the orbits of asteroids 9 months out with any certainty.
      - vanattab 5y ago
        We don't necessarily need it to be certain to hit to prepare. It would just have to be significantly risky.
tibyat 5y ago
TaylorAlexander 5y ago
We have Starlink because of new and expanding launch opportunities. Starlink is very helpful (I work at a farm and before Starlink we had very poor internet options) for people the world over. Can we build a new generation of space based asteroid observers? I know that this is a reactive approach but I don't see those constellations coming down. We could prevent expansion but they are damned helpful. In the past space telescopes were a big affair to launch one system. But what if we launched a constellation of 100 or 500 space based telescopes? Is there a way to move forward to solve this? Or what is the solution?

ghaff 5y ago

“So dangerous” Really? Those arguing that LEO internet satellites are an existential threat had better come up with a rural internet alternative if that’s their position. Because internet availability is a genie that’s not going back in the bottle.

imoverclocked 5y ago
I’ll see your life-ending existential threat and lower it with the lack of ok-latency, higher-speed internet. This is coming from someone who lives in a rural area without reasonable internet options and is on the Starlink waiting list. I’d rather be alive than have lower-latency connections to Reddit.
anonymouse008 5y ago
Rural internet is solvable when public officials prioritize it - what isn't easily solvable is a natural disaster connectivity, which still could be line of sight, mobile, temporary balloons before satellites.

CamperBob2 5y ago

This argument has never made any sense to me. We know where the satellites are. If that's not enough to keep them from interfering with astronomical observations, well, somebody needs to spend less time complaining and more time working on their own tech.

BenjiWiebe 5y ago

StarLink satellites move in known and predictable ways. How does this hinder spotting things that aren't currently known about? There's even other objects in the sky/space that aren't man-made that also move, and most of them we know about as well.

zelon88 5y ago
See my reply above with 4 articles describing the problem. 3 of them from the past 3 months.
- upsidesinclude 5y ago
  You bring up the recency of these articles to bolster your argument, but it is detrimental to your point. Particularly from these sources. Alarmist regurgitation is the standard, popsci-brand churn. If there's a click bait title that is going to drive views they'll print. You might be right. I doubt that. These don't strengthen your position
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    IOP is clickbait popsci? The first link is also mostly quotations from scientists. Did you read the sources linked to?
Rebelgecko 5y ago
By definition, things we don't know about aren't moving in known and predictable ways, so if you throw out data from X parts of the sky during time period Y you are potentially losing the observations that would help identify a new object
- bagels 5y ago
  This is a problem solved by taking a few more images. The asteroids aren't moving in synchrony with starlinks.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

My understanding is that artifacts from Starlink are trivial to remove from ground based astronomy datasets. We know what they look like, where they are, and when they transit. do you have other information?

whatshisface 5y ago
It is not really possible to remove artifacts from images because there is a degree of randomness in which photons arrive, and even if your model is accurate down to the level of QED, you will not be able to exactly subtract the photon counts.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  Im not sure I follow. Im not saying that you subtract photon counts, but void measurements entirely for pixels with satellites in them.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Telescopes use long exposures. The satellites leave streaks and a lot of pixels would have to be deleted.
    - postalrat 5y ago
      Maybe two telescopes and a bit of math to use the difference in distance to the satellites vs the asteroids?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Long exposures can still have a duration censored. This is digital photography, not chemical. If you expose for 1 million seconds, you can edit out 60 seconds where a satellite passes. That data is forever gone, but you still get the rest of the data from that pixel time.
      - 5y ago

slibhb 5y ago

Is there any evidence that an asteroid like this would have been detected earlier without Starlink satellites?

SachaMichel 5y ago

I was going to disagree about the impacts of the starlink constellations because the trails can mostly only be seen during twilight (dusk/dawn) observations. However in this case you're 100% right. The Caltech article below states "The streaks are most apparent in so-called twilight observations, those taken at dawn or dusk, which are important for finding near-Earth asteroids that appear close to the sun in the sky. ZTF has discovered several asteroids of this nature, including 2020 AV2, the first asteroid spotted with an orbit that fits entirely within the orbit of Venus. "In 2019, 0.5 percent of twilight images were affected, and now almost 20 percent are affected," says Przemek Mróz, study lead author and a former Caltech postdoctoral scholar who is now at the University of Warsaw in Poland." We may potentially have a serious problem on our hands unless we really ramp up exterrestrial observation, or maybe we won't have a problem, we might just all be dead on impact. Link to article https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument-analyzes-impact-of-starlink-satellites https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/palomar-survey-instrument...

pdonis 5y ago
> we might just all be dead on impact The asteroids in question are tiny. One of the links in the article under discussion is to a previous article about an asteroid that hit the Earth near Iceland 5 hours after being detected. It was about 3 meters wide. That's way too small to justify worries about global damage on impact.
- jjulius 5y ago
  What we've found at the last minute so far has been small, but that doesn't mean that the only last-minute discoveries will be small asteroids always and forever.
  - ghaff 5y ago
    As others have said, so what are you going to do about this last minute discovery absent some sort of space-based planetary defense system, in which case this discussion is moot?

b112 5y ago

While I agree with your assessment currently, it is flawed moving forward. The amount of launch capacity we now have, and the massive drop in cost per tonne to orbit, means spaceborn telescopes are cheap now, with the added benefit of no atmosphere. And as costs to launch have dropped, so can costs to build. We don't need to spend loads of cash, since the cost of launch is so cheap, we can just throw a replacement up if it goes bust. In fact, we don't even need telescopes to scan our neighborhood... just loads of smaller video capturing cameras, with excellent zoom lenses. If 10% fail, who cares? It's time to think about proper near earth detection, not the pot luck stuff we've been doing so far. And it's time to think in terms of the launch capacity we have..

upsidesinclude 5y ago
Agreed. We have far better tools at our disposal and with a full mesh network of satellites providing optics, we could have an amazing early detection system with total spatial coverage. This is the alarmist pop-sci all the sources are known for pumping out
leetcrew 5y ago
what would we do with "proper near earth detection" other than contemplate our impending doom? lowest estimate for lead time to prepare an interception mission is one year, and even still the probability of success is not clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_impact_avoidance

jliptzin 5y ago

I am not excusing the problems starlink is causing for astronomers but would a partial solution be to fit a telescope to the back of every starlink satellite which astronomers would have access to?

ortusdux 5y ago
A better bet would be to launch a payload of cube imaging satellites. Possibly a partnership with Planet to make a variation of their Doves.
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Starlink satellites are bigger than cubesats but still fairly small, I don't think you're gonna get like a 3m mirror on them. And even if you're able to replicate the capabilities of a subpar optical telescope, the radio astronomers are still SOL

apeace 5y ago

Are you saying that we have a choice between defending ourselves from asteroids, and offering low-latency internet to remote regions? Is there no way to have both? (I know nothing about this.)

hutzlibu 5y ago
We could have both, by having also mass produced and launched space telescopes. But who is gonna pay for them?
- soperj 5y ago
  NASA paid $8.8 billion on just the James Webb. If they wanted to have a mass produced telescope for much cheaper, they could likely pay someone to produce a bunch of them for $8.8 billion. It wouldn't be as capable, but that's probably also not necessary.
vkou 5y ago
Actually, since asteroid defense is infeasible with our current capabilities, our options are between relatively low-latency internet to remote regions (and causing headaches for astronomers), and nothing.
- freemint 5y ago
  Is it infeasible? If we have 9 months to prepare we manage if wel fail to detect it for 8 due to StarLink it is to late. Also StarLink is not for everyone, just for (globally speaking) rich people.
  - vkou 5y ago
    We can't determine the orbits of asteroids 9 months out with any certainty.
    - vanattab 5y ago
      We don't necessarily need it to be certain to hit to prepare. It would just have to be significantly risky.

tibyat 5y ago

TaylorAlexander 5y ago

We have Starlink because of new and expanding launch opportunities. Starlink is very helpful (I work at a farm and before Starlink we had very poor internet options) for people the world over. Can we build a new generation of space based asteroid observers? I know that this is a reactive approach but I don't see those constellations coming down. We could prevent expansion but they are damned helpful. In the past space telescopes were a big affair to launch one system. But what if we launched a constellation of 100 or 500 space based telescopes? Is there a way to move forward to solve this? Or what is the solution?