As someone who co-incidentally started dabbling in Astrophotography as a hobby in early 2019 before Starlink launched, back then you literally could capture a single 20-second exposure (on a very wide lens, so no obvious star trail/blur at that focal length due to the Earth's rotation), and get images with no satellites.
Now (and even in 2021 it was getting hard to do that) it's impossible to do that, even with 10 second exposures.
What's needed now is multiple exposures, and merging/integrating them in something like Siril (https://siril.org/) to remove the obvious satellite trails.
However, arguably, integrating multiple exposures, while annoying and time-consuming workflow-wise (i.e. can't just look at images directly from camera, and currently need to convert to TIFF first) is often the better way to get slightly-less-noisy images anyway, and integrate effectively longer exposures without star-trails, so it's a tricky one.
At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful.
In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me at all, and I could never find an argument in support of this ‘fact’.
You acknowledge the existence of things blocking <something>, and can't imagine that there are people who want to see <something>?
I feel like when <something> is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragmatically?
The following types of people might feel strongly about this for some reason or another- I feel like steelmaning hypothetical opinions they might have is a really enriching thing to do.
- Photographers / enthusiasts
- Astronomers / enthusiasts
- Those who enjoy nature
I personally have a mixed opinion, probably leaning towards alignment with the above groups, but I can also steelman the thought processes of those who'd think this is cool or fascinating (because of course, it is!)
I'm not trying to convince you of something about the post subject here; The rhetorical questions above are not intended to be read as "how don't you understand this and agree with me", but instead "how/why did these potential viewpoints not find you?" The lack of mention of any other viewpoint comes off as almost poor-faith or naivete.
In the SWE community, people place a lot of emphasis on attempting to find solutions to a problem yourself first, before asking a question (and detailing what you've tried/explored already) to a community. With that mentality, it irks me when I see comments that don't seem to apply the same rigor to rhetorical discussions.
At the risk of being overtly snarky, could you really not conjure anyone that might have an opposing viewpoint?
And fwiw, I also think the image is really cool. It's insane the world we've built, and imagining the context of all the math, physics, and human power of will that are behind those streaks of light is awesome.
But a negative viewpoint can't be that hard to see, right?
Sorry, but the ship has sailed. Fix your problems in software maybe.
> - Astronomers / enthusiasts
Every Starship launch should offer ride-share for a space based observatory. Astronomy will only improve with space based telescopes. Yes, spacecraft are expensive but so are Earth based observatories, but how does it look with launch cost removed from the equation?
> - Those who enjoy nature
Generally can't see the satellites with the naked eye. Should probably concentrate on not walking into a hole / body of water / off a steep precipice.
This complaint about the aesthetics of the night sky is the wimpy enemy of progress. Imagine bronze / iron age people up in arms because suddenly the sea is full of fishing boats and merchant vessels. Or people up in arms because farmland has spoiled the view of forests.
Yes, I think this stuff looks nice without man-made things. I enjoy the night sky. I also enjoy being able to eat and utilize modern technology. There will come a day when spacecraft coming and going will be as routine as we see airplanes now, so our descendants will have that to complain about next, until it becomes as pointless to complain about as the asphalt roads that have lead to and from or houses.
Space based technology will make life better for all of humanity just like every technology that has come before it. The genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in.
"....Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked....."
I do find the juxtaposition of “look at this image of satellites” and “the image is a composition of 360 photographs” to require a certain leap of logic that hasn’t been established. On the one hand, it shows that a lot of satellites are visible throughout the night. On the other hand it’s harder to understand what the broader implications of this are.
Had the same thought. In a way, that photo is absolutely stunning and beautiful in its own way. But I do understand how this is a huge problem for the astronomers.
I don't doubt that this is a real problem for astronomers and photographers, but I feel like if you had to work that hard, it doesn't really make your case.
In his defense, he was shooting a star trail. @10s per exposure, 6 per minute, becomes 360 per hour.
I believe 30s might be more appropriate for star trails which makes satellite trails oh so much more obvious. But that means a 2-3 hour session of 2 exposures per minute.
I also used to take hundreds of photos in meteor season - and having to diff between meteors and satellites was quite time consuming.
in photos, meteors and satellites do not look the same. satellite trails are consistent lines. meteors start small, flare in the middle, and then ends small again. they are easy for humans to distinguish, so i'd assume some software could do it as well
This is not true. Image in article is taken (and stack from many images) during sunset/sunrise when satellites are lighted by sun while photographer is in dark. It's not that visible at night.
There was a Russian start up planning to do this a few years back. They had actually reached a deal with Pepsi’s Russian operations until the public backlash convinced them to find a different public relations strategy.
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-astronomers-russian-billboards...
I'm waiting for the dystopian SciFi novel now where earth's last survivors blast the escape route through that cloud of satellite rubbish for their Starship (TM), by use of an array of those.
That’s so true. I can see it too. The technology to make that must be super fun to work on but please I hope this will never happen. Can you imagine turning the whole sky as a giant pixelated screen to constantly show us ads? That’s as dystopian as it gets. Add to that the probable less than secure software to run it and hackers trying to show stuff up there. That’s something out of a Douglas Adams book. xD
Anyone attempting such a thing needs to be instantly put to death.
I’m fine with putting dots in the sky as a necessary side effect of providing some sort of useful service. Worldwide connectivity seems worth making astronomical observations a bit harder. But visual pollution for its own sake should be harshly discouraged.
I don't think such a thing could hold together very long, unless it was just a string in a line. Maybe in Morse code?
With multiple launches you could probably get several parallel strings, and use it like a dot matrix printer. It would be a heck of a stunt. But I wouldn't expect it to last for more than one orbit, and only part of the planet could see it.
You can change brightness and color of individual satellites as they move, so they would match the "pixel" they are in now. Just imagine swarm of very small emitting light bugs moving chaotically behind your screen and changing colors as they move from one pixel to an other. The only issue is to make sure that at every moment each pixel has enough bugs to get the required brightness.
If I hadn’t known what starlink was the first time I saw it, I would have assumed it was something artificial - the spacing and trajectory is far too regular to be a comet breaking up or something like that.
You absolutely can see them with the naked eye. Very easy to spot on any given clear night if you know what to look for, especially when they’re moving in a cluster. They don’t look like meteors, far too slow.
I'm not. I don't regard satellites as evil. While outside last night looking at the Milky Way I spotted 2 satellites and 3 aircraft. I like seeing the satellites; I dislike that I can't see the Milky Way at home in the city due to the light pollution.
> Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked.
We have the technology to put observatories in orbit, where satellite "pollution", light pollution, atmospheric effects, etc. all become significantly less problematic. Maybe that should be our focus, rather than on shaming satellite constellations for doing essential work?
Readit News
Now (and even in 2021 it was getting hard to do that) it's impossible to do that, even with 10 second exposures.
What's needed now is multiple exposures, and merging/integrating them in something like Siril (https://siril.org/) to remove the obvious satellite trails.
However, arguably, integrating multiple exposures, while annoying and time-consuming workflow-wise (i.e. can't just look at images directly from camera, and currently need to convert to TIFF first) is often the better way to get slightly-less-noisy images anyway, and integrate effectively longer exposures without star-trails, so it's a tricky one.
I think it runs off a .mov or other video file, you add black frames, etc.
In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me at all, and I could never find an argument in support of this ‘fact’.
Can someone enlighten me here?
I feel like when <something> is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragmatically?
The following types of people might feel strongly about this for some reason or another- I feel like steelmaning hypothetical opinions they might have is a really enriching thing to do.
- Photographers / enthusiasts
- Astronomers / enthusiasts
- Those who enjoy nature
I personally have a mixed opinion, probably leaning towards alignment with the above groups, but I can also steelman the thought processes of those who'd think this is cool or fascinating (because of course, it is!)
I'm not trying to convince you of something about the post subject here; The rhetorical questions above are not intended to be read as "how don't you understand this and agree with me", but instead "how/why did these potential viewpoints not find you?" The lack of mention of any other viewpoint comes off as almost poor-faith or naivete.
In the SWE community, people place a lot of emphasis on attempting to find solutions to a problem yourself first, before asking a question (and detailing what you've tried/explored already) to a community. With that mentality, it irks me when I see comments that don't seem to apply the same rigor to rhetorical discussions.
At the risk of being overtly snarky, could you really not conjure anyone that might have an opposing viewpoint?
But a negative viewpoint can't be that hard to see, right?
Sorry, but the ship has sailed. Fix your problems in software maybe.
> - Astronomers / enthusiasts
Every Starship launch should offer ride-share for a space based observatory. Astronomy will only improve with space based telescopes. Yes, spacecraft are expensive but so are Earth based observatories, but how does it look with launch cost removed from the equation?
> - Those who enjoy nature
Generally can't see the satellites with the naked eye. Should probably concentrate on not walking into a hole / body of water / off a steep precipice.
This complaint about the aesthetics of the night sky is the wimpy enemy of progress. Imagine bronze / iron age people up in arms because suddenly the sea is full of fishing boats and merchant vessels. Or people up in arms because farmland has spoiled the view of forests.
Yes, I think this stuff looks nice without man-made things. I enjoy the night sky. I also enjoy being able to eat and utilize modern technology. There will come a day when spacecraft coming and going will be as routine as we see airplanes now, so our descendants will have that to complain about next, until it becomes as pointless to complain about as the asphalt roads that have lead to and from or houses.
Space based technology will make life better for all of humanity just like every technology that has come before it. The genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in.
"....Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked....."
Now imagine the probability of the debris hitting other satellites and causing even more debris.
Finally, compare how many satellites have been launched in the past 5 years versus the rest of history.
I don't doubt that this is a real problem for astronomers and photographers, but I feel like if you had to work that hard, it doesn't really make your case.
I believe 30s might be more appropriate for star trails which makes satellite trails oh so much more obvious. But that means a 2-3 hour session of 2 exposures per minute.
I also used to take hundreds of photos in meteor season - and having to diff between meteors and satellites was quite time consuming.
You need to take a lot of exposures in order to get the data necessary to even see anything.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz
You don’t need multiples, and you don’t need an overly long exposure.
Deleted Comment
I can imagine a constellation of satellites writing ads (live) in space using mirrors and other nifty tech.
Unless regulation stops it.
Or a ground-based megawatt IR laser with steerable optics.
I'm waiting for the dystopian SciFi novel now where earth's last survivors blast the escape route through that cloud of satellite rubbish for their Starship (TM), by use of an array of those.
One can always dream.
I’m fine with putting dots in the sky as a necessary side effect of providing some sort of useful service. Worldwide connectivity seems worth making astronomical observations a bit harder. But visual pollution for its own sake should be harshly discouraged.
With multiple launches you could probably get several parallel strings, and use it like a dot matrix printer. It would be a heck of a stunt. But I wouldn't expect it to last for more than one orbit, and only part of the planet could see it.
We have the technology to put observatories in orbit, where satellite "pollution", light pollution, atmospheric effects, etc. all become significantly less problematic. Maybe that should be our focus, rather than on shaming satellite constellations for doing essential work?