4 ms·

Yes. The first three were all published within the past 3 months. The last one is your question answered in Quora for good measure. [1] https://www.sciencealer

Yes. The first three were all published within the past 3 months. The last one is your question answered in Quora for good measure. [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...

Retric 5y ago
There are real incentives to overstate the issue. Ask if we should end funding for a ground based observatory and you will hear a very different story: ~“Starlink blocks up to 0.1% data collected by ground based telescopes, that isn’t inherently a big deal.” The truth is someone in between, a few kinds of observations are being significantly impacted while most are largely able to avoid the issue.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
None of these articles counter the claim that it is trivial to remove streaks with software. Some data will always be lost, as the satellites do obstruct part of the night sky, However the fractional area obstructed is exceedingly low. That is to say, If you dump pixels with satellites, you will have fewer pixels. However, the number of pixels is low and changes with time.
- freemint 5y ago
  The number pixels affected increases with the linearly with the exposure length. However to spot things twice as far away (at the same brightness) we need to stare 4 times longer at the same place.
  - Retric 5y ago
    That’s assuming a fixed instrument and zero mitigation. You can also add a shutter or increase the light gathering area to reduce exposure time etc.
    - freemint 5y ago
      Yes one can build a new telescope.
      - Retric 5y ago
        More, when building a new telescope how much money does it take to get the same amount of data. If spending 1% more gives the same data then it’s not that significant an issue.

Retric 5y ago

There are real incentives to overstate the issue. Ask if we should end funding for a ground based observatory and you will hear a very different story: ~“Starlink blocks up to 0.1% data collected by ground based telescopes, that isn’t inherently a big deal.” The truth is someone in between, a few kinds of observations are being significantly impacted while most are largely able to avoid the issue.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

None of these articles counter the claim that it is trivial to remove streaks with software. Some data will always be lost, as the satellites do obstruct part of the night sky, However the fractional area obstructed is exceedingly low. That is to say, If you dump pixels with satellites, you will have fewer pixels. However, the number of pixels is low and changes with time.

freemint 5y ago
The number pixels affected increases with the linearly with the exposure length. However to spot things twice as far away (at the same brightness) we need to stare 4 times longer at the same place.
- Retric 5y ago
  That’s assuming a fixed instrument and zero mitigation. You can also add a shutter or increase the light gathering area to reduce exposure time etc.
  - freemint 5y ago
    Yes one can build a new telescope.
    - Retric 5y ago
      More, when building a new telescope how much money does it take to get the same amount of data. If spending 1% more gives the same data then it’s not that significant an issue.