4 ms·

What is the actual problem? Amatuer astronomy is more difficult? Or is someone alleging that this is impacting SotA astronomy? Or is this a Kesler Syndrom th

What is the actual problem? Amatuer astronomy is more difficult? Or is someone alleging that this is impacting SotA astronomy? Or is this a Kesler Syndrom thing?

seltzered_ 3y ago
I'm not an astronomer, but I think some are arguing satellite light pollution is impacting taxpayer-funded/institutional astonomical science work: https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets/111166009322243265 https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets/111166009322243265
- snvzz 3y ago
  Astronomy makes more sense with observations done from outside the atmosphere.
  - khobragade 3y ago
    How many of us get access to that?
    - snvzz 3y ago
      It simply is not efficient to do this with the atmosphere in the middle. The time for that was centuries ago. Try naked eye, changes are you'll find the north star if at all. Simple light pollution already makes this really hard.
  - joaonmatos 3y ago
    The amount of physical adjustments and maintenance needed to operate mirrors in the 15m+ diameter range, for visible and near IR/UV, are very hard in outer space. For now it seems that earth-bound optical telescopes are still needed, even with all the orbital debree and atmospheric interference.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
All earth-bound or upper atmospheric photo-astronomy now looks like this: https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571785082&q=starlink+astronomy&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571785082&q=starlink+a... The satellites reflect a significant amount of sunlight. It's many, many times worse than existing satellites and lights from airplane traffic and more difficult to remove the tracks, plus whatever was hidden behind the reflecting satellite is lost. Things are even worse for radio astronomy, because apparently the starlink satellites emit significant RF pollution: https://www.space.com/starlink-electronics-hum-disturbs-radio-astronomy https://www.space.com/starlink-electronics-hum-disturbs-radi... https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/08/aa46374-23/aa46374-23.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/08/aa46374-... The interference apparently varies satellite to satellite in both intensity and band, and exists in a very wide range of frequencies, including those protected for scientific observation by the ITU. It's infuriating that one man has so significantly impacted nearly an entire field of science.
- deelowe 3y ago
  I thought it was temporary and only happened when they are first launched?
- vel0city 3y ago
  There's more than a single employee at Starlink. There's over 200 people significantly on impacting nearly an entire field of science, along with their subscribers paying money to impact an entire field of science.
- PBnFlash 3y ago
  The wide angle and time lapse of these massively overstates the problem. The angle they cover is microscopic and they only cover it for an instant. In visible spectrum I find it very hard to believe it is a more serious problem than earth based astronomy already deals with like atmospheric issues. Radio looks pretty bleak, noise floor is about to get a lot higher.
clumsysmurf 3y ago
Yes https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/amazons-project-kuiper-satellites-add-to-astronomers-light-pollution-woes/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/amazons-project-kuiper...
KolenCh 3y ago
At the very least for scientific surveys, additional works are needed to understand their emission and model their effects and then forecast the level of contamination/bias via simulation. Mitigation strategies might be needed, such as changing the scanning strategy. Masking out the point sources effectively reduces sensitivity, effectively losing money in the sense that they are either going to miss the target from initial funding, or need to ask for more funding. In short, all astronomers are affected, the more expensive programs are likely affected most as they often are targeting higher sensitivity (hence it will be sensitive to even small amount of contamination) and/or large fraction of the sky (hence it is impossible to avoid scanning across any of them).
TheDudeMan 3y ago
It seems like it would be trivial to correct for these moving objects.

What is the actual problem? Amatuer astronomy is more difficult? Or is someone alleging that this is impacting SotA astronomy? Or is this a Kesler Syndrom thing?

seltzered_ 3y ago

I'm not an astronomer, but I think some are arguing satellite light pollution is impacting taxpayer-funded/institutional astonomical science work: https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets/111166009322243265 https://mastodon.social/@sundogplanets/111166009322243265

snvzz 3y ago
Astronomy makes more sense with observations done from outside the atmosphere.
- khobragade 3y ago
  How many of us get access to that?
  - snvzz 3y ago
    It simply is not efficient to do this with the atmosphere in the middle. The time for that was centuries ago. Try naked eye, changes are you'll find the north star if at all. Simple light pollution already makes this really hard.
- joaonmatos 3y ago
  The amount of physical adjustments and maintenance needed to operate mirrors in the 15m+ diameter range, for visible and near IR/UV, are very hard in outer space. For now it seems that earth-bound optical telescopes are still needed, even with all the orbital debree and atmospheric interference.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

All earth-bound or upper atmospheric photo-astronomy now looks like this: https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571785082&q=starlink+astronomy&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571785082&q=starlink+a... The satellites reflect a significant amount of sunlight. It's many, many times worse than existing satellites and lights from airplane traffic and more difficult to remove the tracks, plus whatever was hidden behind the reflecting satellite is lost. Things are even worse for radio astronomy, because apparently the starlink satellites emit significant RF pollution: https://www.space.com/starlink-electronics-hum-disturbs-radio-astronomy https://www.space.com/starlink-electronics-hum-disturbs-radi... https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/08/aa46374-23/aa46374-23.html https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full_html/2023/08/aa46374-... The interference apparently varies satellite to satellite in both intensity and band, and exists in a very wide range of frequencies, including those protected for scientific observation by the ITU. It's infuriating that one man has so significantly impacted nearly an entire field of science.

deelowe 3y ago
I thought it was temporary and only happened when they are first launched?
vel0city 3y ago
There's more than a single employee at Starlink. There's over 200 people significantly on impacting nearly an entire field of science, along with their subscribers paying money to impact an entire field of science.
PBnFlash 3y ago
The wide angle and time lapse of these massively overstates the problem. The angle they cover is microscopic and they only cover it for an instant. In visible spectrum I find it very hard to believe it is a more serious problem than earth based astronomy already deals with like atmospheric issues. Radio looks pretty bleak, noise floor is about to get a lot higher.

clumsysmurf 3y ago

Yes https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/amazons-project-kuiper-satellites-add-to-astronomers-light-pollution-woes/ https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/amazons-project-kuiper...

KolenCh 3y ago

At the very least for scientific surveys, additional works are needed to understand their emission and model their effects and then forecast the level of contamination/bias via simulation. Mitigation strategies might be needed, such as changing the scanning strategy. Masking out the point sources effectively reduces sensitivity, effectively losing money in the sense that they are either going to miss the target from initial funding, or need to ask for more funding. In short, all astronomers are affected, the more expensive programs are likely affected most as they often are targeting higher sensitivity (hence it will be sensitive to even small amount of contamination) and/or large fraction of the sky (hence it is impossible to avoid scanning across any of them).

TheDudeMan 3y ago

It seems like it would be trivial to correct for these moving objects.