For those that know about trails and the ease of removing them from images through stacking as I thought, it isn’t about that, despite the cover image. It’s about momentary glints disrupting searches for momentary events. Not too much more to the article though, just raising awareness
deleted by creator
Is this a joke?
The people with the strongest opinions are almost always the least informed.
It’s reflected light from the Sun as they orbit, not lights installed on them. Maybe they can use a non-reflective coating or something for new ones though
You will be pleased to know starlink has recently started doing exactly that after working with astronomers to mitigate this issue.
What’s the point of looking at the stars of we never reach for them? At some point the telescopes have to move into space, we can’t stay earthbound forever
Or we could regulate the reflectivity of satellites. No one is suggesting we shouldn’t have satellites. Why don’t we do satellites on purpose in a way that still allows us to also do effective astronomy?
They can’t make them non-reflective enough to not interrupt really deep observing. Also, that just shifts the problem around. If they are absorbing in the visible, they will likely have huge amounts of blackbody radiation in IR, sub/millimeter, and radio. You would need to make a satellite out of dark matter to not interrupt astronomy.
How about not putting a bunch of janky constantly-needing-replenishment laggy-internet satellites into orbit to begin with where the only real beneficiaries outside of bullshit “remote” excuses is the US military?
No one is suggesting we shouldn’t have satellites.
Many astronomers suggested exactly that, they were against the approval of starlink.
we could regulate the reflectivity of satellites
Starlink has been doing that for 3 years now. There are limits to how nonreflective they can get the satellites.
Standard issue Musk brain rot.
“Shouldn’t have satellites” at all vs. “maybe let’s not approve this one corporation doing this completely unregulated activity.” If you really can’t tell the difference between those two things, I can’t help you.
“limited to how nonreflective they can get the satellites”
Citation needed.
A hype-riding not-actually-a-scientist billionaire apartheid prince says it can’t be done, and no one that works for him wants to say otherwise because they don’t want to be fired.
Love how you also completely ignore the dozens of other companies designing and/or beginning deployment of massive satellite constellations just like Starlink. Some of them even multiple times larger than what Starlink is aiming for.
There very much are astronomers that have said they do not want ANY LEO satellite constellations.
This isn’t just a Musk thing.
Man, I just went to a good seminar today on finding habitable exoplanets that emphasized that we currently need ground based telescopes, because it is still impractical to make 30+ meter telescopes in space and would be very expensive, even if could be done. But progress is just launching a bunch of bullshit into orbit to avoid real investment in infrastructure like fiber and other telecommunication lines.
But progress is just launching a bunch of bullshit into orbit to avoid real investment in infrastructure like fiber and other telecommunication lines.
With sufficient tweets/xeets/whatever about how “we can’t stay earthbound forever” and “we must spread the light of consciousness to the stars,” extremely credulous “I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE” bazinga brains will happily see actual science being trampled upon in favor of performative spectacle bullshit.
Throw enough glittering trash into orbit and your “can’t stay earthbound forever” platitudes become self-defeating because at some point nothing could be safely launched.
The satellite constellations are in LEO. Kessler syndrome is literally not possible at that altitude.
I already knew that; my point was that letting your euphorically under-regulated corporate saviors do whatever they please (which can and probably will include higher orbit satellite junk later on) under pretenses of pretentious “reach the stars” platitudes is interfering with actual contemporary scientific inquiry, right now.
The pollution of each launch is significant, and the benefit of the janky low orbit network is questionable (except to the US military), especially because it requires constant additional launches.
but have you considered that this under-regulated shlock allows for
command and control in warzones across the worldshitty internet service in “remote areas”
Yo I have this amazing bridge I’m selling, and you seem like a wise investor.
Just use fluffy euphoric speeches about destiny and reaching for the stars, prattle that could fit in a movie with a soundtrack composed by Hans Zimmer, and you can sell the “I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE” crowd almost anything, including actual contempt and dismissal for actual scientists (astronomers in this case).
