4 ms·

My eyes nearly roll out of my head every time I see someone complain about this. People act like astronomy is ruined forever, it's not. You can predict where th

My eyes nearly roll out of my head every time I see someone complain about this. People act like astronomy is ruined forever, it's not. You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them. They're not even a problem for large portions of the night and sky at all because there's very little light for them to reflect. There are a lot of benefits to having a constellation like this, and the tech that's being developed to support it will advance astronomy. Is it perfect? No. Is musk being an asshole about it? Probably, haven't checked. Are the people complaining about it mostly NIMBYs who care largely because Musk has a (deserved) bad rap? Yes, absolutely. This is a very marginal issue, folks need to calm down.

bmitc 3y ago
> This is a very marginal issue, folks need to calm down. Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically permanently, a ring or string of lights in the sky, unwittingly, just because of some billionaire? > You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if you know where they're at if they're in your way. Telescope time is extremely precious and expensive. Not to mention, these megaconstellations have basically permanently increased the background noise in various spectrums. Not all astronomy uses the visual spectrum. > They're not even a problem for large portions of the night and sky at all because there's very little light for them to reflect. That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes. Your eyes can roll all they want. It doesn't make the problem go away.
- philwelch 3y ago
  If it’s cheap and easy to fill the night sky with satellites, the obvious implication is that it will also be cheap and easy to do astronomy from space, and your “extremely precious and expensive” telescope time could be on a satellite outside the atmosphere in the first place. This is an entirely transitory issue and instead of trying to deprive people of internet access, astronomers should be working together on launching their own satellite megaconstellation.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    > obvious implication is that it will also be cheap and easy to do astronomy from space That's so beyond false it's difficult to even respond to. Do you understand the size of the telescopes, both optical and radio? Do you understand the complexity of space-based instruments like the James Webb and Hubble telescopes?
    - philwelch 3y ago
      The complexity of Webb is almost entirely a consequence of the limitations of its launch platform. You have absolutely no conception of what a post-Starship world is going to look like.
    - AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
      [dead]
    - thot_experiment 3y ago
      Optical band interferometry is gonna happen eventually, perhaps directly as a result to advances in optical interlinking being pursued by starlink right now.
- gunapologist99 3y ago
  Focal points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(optics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(optics)
  - bmitc 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
- thot_experiment 3y ago
  > Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically permanently, a ring or string of lights in the sky, unwittingly, just because of some billionaire? There are upsides also. > You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them. You could for example not collect from the relevant photosites during transit, we're not using photographic plates anymore. This is not some sort of insurmountable problem, I'm not claiming it's not a problem, but it is not an astronomy ruining problem. As an indirect result of starlink we have also vastly decreased the cost to put an telescope in space. > That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes. You absolutely can't see them in the earth's umbra, they're only 500km high, the umbra represents a significant portion of the sky.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    > You absolutely can't see them in the earth's penumbra I have seen them with my own eyes and they've been filmed. It's just not correct. It's particularly visible when the sun is hitting them. You can find several photos and videos of them from the ground.
    - thot_experiment 3y ago
      My mistake, I meant umbra, the part where there isn't any sun, which makes up most of the sky most of the night.

bmitc 3y ago

> This is a very marginal issue, folks need to calm down. Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically permanently, a ring or string of lights in the sky, unwittingly, just because of some billionaire? > You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if you know where they're at if they're in your way. Telescope time is extremely precious and expensive. Not to mention, these megaconstellations have basically permanently increased the background noise in various spectrums. Not all astronomy uses the visual spectrum. > They're not even a problem for large portions of the night and sky at all because there's very little light for them to reflect. That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes. Your eyes can roll all they want. It doesn't make the problem go away.

philwelch 3y ago
If it’s cheap and easy to fill the night sky with satellites, the obvious implication is that it will also be cheap and easy to do astronomy from space, and your “extremely precious and expensive” telescope time could be on a satellite outside the atmosphere in the first place. This is an entirely transitory issue and instead of trying to deprive people of internet access, astronomers should be working together on launching their own satellite megaconstellation.
- bmitc 3y ago
  > obvious implication is that it will also be cheap and easy to do astronomy from space That's so beyond false it's difficult to even respond to. Do you understand the size of the telescopes, both optical and radio? Do you understand the complexity of space-based instruments like the James Webb and Hubble telescopes?
  - philwelch 3y ago
    The complexity of Webb is almost entirely a consequence of the limitations of its launch platform. You have absolutely no conception of what a post-Starship world is going to look like.
  - AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
    [dead]
  - thot_experiment 3y ago
    Optical band interferometry is gonna happen eventually, perhaps directly as a result to advances in optical interlinking being pursued by starlink right now.
gunapologist99 3y ago
Focal points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(optics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(optics)
- bmitc 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
thot_experiment 3y ago
> Is it? Why do we need to visually see, basically permanently, a ring or string of lights in the sky, unwittingly, just because of some billionaire? There are upsides also. > You can predict where the satellites are going to be and avoid them. You could for example not collect from the relevant photosites during transit, we're not using photographic plates anymore. This is not some sort of insurmountable problem, I'm not claiming it's not a problem, but it is not an astronomy ruining problem. As an indirect result of starlink we have also vastly decreased the cost to put an telescope in space. > That's not true. You can see them with your own eyes. You absolutely can't see them in the earth's umbra, they're only 500km high, the umbra represents a significant portion of the sky.
- bmitc 3y ago
  > You absolutely can't see them in the earth's penumbra I have seen them with my own eyes and they've been filmed. It's just not correct. It's particularly visible when the sun is hitting them. You can find several photos and videos of them from the ground.
  - thot_experiment 3y ago
    My mistake, I meant umbra, the part where there isn't any sun, which makes up most of the sky most of the night.