3 ms·
I'm sure it's inconvenient, but it's hard for me to believe that this isn't a solvable problem. Satellites have extremely predictable paths and are very well-t
by shadowgovt 2y ago
I'm sure it's inconvenient, but it's hard for me to believe that this isn't a solvable problem.
Satellites have extremely predictable paths and are very well-tracked by every government with a space program. If you can know a source of noise is there, you can trim the noise out of the signal. Sure, this impacts the fidelity of your signal for the three-dimensional coordinates of image where the noise was present, but "We're getting less science per day" isn't a reason to stop the low-orbit satellite boom.
What am I missing here? Can we not do the signal-subtraction? Is the problem unsolved or unsolvable? And if it's unsolved... Where are the grants to solve it?
- SaberTail 2y agoWhen counting photons, the noise in your signal scales with the square root of the total count. If the satellite is dumping 100 ± 10 photons in every pixel it passes through, you can no longer distinguish objects so faint that they'd only leave 10 photons in a pixel during your exposure.
- shadowgovt 2y agoBut in two dimensions of space and one of time, that's only a momentary occlusion right?