
Trails Made by Starlink Satellites - tbeutel
https://www.iau.org/public/images/detail/ann19035a/
======
astro123
Here's a statement [1] by one of the largest upcoming surveys, LSST. At least
for them, this isn't going to be too much of a problem as,

1) Exposures are fairly short and frequent and so pixels contaminated by these
satellites can be easily rejected. 2) There is a huge amount of resources
(relative to other projects) going into the image pipeline for this project.

I don't actually know in details how much this will affect other types of
observations though. [2] is the IAU's statement (that goes with that image),
which points out some types of observations that might be more affected.

[1] [https://www.lsst.org/content/lsst-statement-regarding-
increa...](https://www.lsst.org/content/lsst-statement-regarding-increased-
deployment-satellite-constellations) [2]
[https://www.iau.org/news/announcements/detail/ann19035/](https://www.iau.org/news/announcements/detail/ann19035/)

~~~
SiempreViernes
It's great that the LSST can survive this, but there's not much point to
building it if all the spectroscopy follow up is killed by efforts to put
facebook in front of every face in the world.

Spectroscopy is the _fundament_ on which modern astronomy is built, and it
inherently takes long times even with big mirrors. Getting a satellite in the
field of view as you take your spectrum most likely means having to start
over, and you run out of usable darkness faster.

~~~
zamadatix
If it can be cheap enough to send 10s of thousands of internet satellites into
orbit every 5 years perhaps the same innovation will help drive cheaper space
based observance where light pollution, radio pollution, satellite/airplane
streaks, and usable darkness aren't a problem.

~~~
SiempreViernes
No, you either do spectra slowly or with large mirrors, no amount of ad spend
will change the physical reality.

~~~
zamadatix
What about space implies fast? Sitting equipment at L2 is all the rage these
days and SpaceX has launched there before.

Not that I think this particular case wouldn't work in LEO, just for things
that wouldn't there are much better options - we just have historically had
trouble getting there affordably/reliably enough to make it worth while.

~~~
SiempreViernes
> What about space implies fast?

Oh, sorry, I though you were going to argue that we don't have to put science
on hold just to let all the world stream gagnam style via Elon owned
infrastructure.

In any case, a single SpaceX heavy costs about the same as 9 2.5 m telescopes,
so good luck making the argument that science won't suffer.

If you put a science instrument in space, you do it because it's the _only_
option, not because Elon says so.

~~~
zamadatix
Do you actually want to talk about the real world impacts of this or have you
already made up your mind? What your saying is going against what the captions
on the image from the IAU site point to and seems to have more to do with your
personal opinion of Elon than the actual merits of space based astronomy or
the impacts of satellites on ground based astronomy.

------
kortilla
“Although this image serves as an illustration of the impact of reflections
from satellite constellations, please note that the density of these
satellites is significantly higher in the days after launch (as seen here) and
also that the satellites will diminish in brightness as they reach their final
orbital altitude.”

~~~
garmaine
Also, not mentioned, satellite trails are only an issue just around twilight
and only near the horizons, both of which are bad seeing conditions for
telescopes.

~~~
SiempreViernes
"Just" being several hours, cutting shorter the finite amount of dark time
available.

~~~
garmaine
Several hours at increasingly lower inclinations as satellites in LEO
reflecting sunlight are low in the sky. Telescopes generally don’t point in
that direction because of the amount of atmosphere makes for bad seeing.

------
chomp
It's worth pointing out that airplane and satellite trails have long been a
problem in astrophotography, and there's many techniques that exist to remove
them in the stacking process.

------
madengr
Damn it, can’t the entire country be wired with fiber? It was done 100 years
ago with heavy conductors for electrification, then again with twisted copper
pair for phone, but now in the 21st century no one can do shit.

Save wireless for what it’s actually useful for, mobile and extremely remote
use.

~~~
meddlepal
The answer is No because your local friendly NIMBY will kill such a project
for some asinine reason.

~~~
jacquesm
I tried laying fiber to an island in Canada. The locals were ecstatic about
it, the telco did what they could to block it, then, when it was clear we were
going to succeed they finally put in minimal broadband for the one village
within the area we were going to cover killing all economies of scale that we
might have found.

NIMBY had nothing to do with it.

~~~
Nextgrid
You could’ve signed up the people in advance into a yearly contract before
even starting the build (with fair clauses that they can opt out at no charge
if the service turns out different than expected, etc).

~~~
klagermkii
It doesn't make sense for the average individual homeowner to sign something
like this. It's also very difficult to do a fair clause for service quality
that works at scale for a contended residential service.

Also a one-year contract still doesn't protect you from them setting predatory
pricing for expiring contracts the next year. A large telco can play many
games of attrition that are very hard for a small (non-VC) startup to win.

------
onetimemanytime
Read an article saying that we might not see stars anymore...'gazillions' of
satellites will be launched in space over time.

~~~
origami777
I live in a big city and never see the stars now.

