1. They are only visible when they are spinning up to orbit
2. They are too dim to desensitize your eyes, and are extremely easy to remove with the most basic of outlier rejection techniques; netizens often amplifiy outliers by max-stacking instead of outlier-rejected mean-stacking to make Starlink look much worse than it is
3. Lights from planes have ALWAYS been much, much, much, much worse than satellites. They still aren't particularly a problem for imaging if you know how to outlier reject, and their paths are known, predictable and trackable
I'm not an Elon-fan or anything but just giving a dose of objective reality here.
Not to detract from TFA's real issue which is light pollution from cities -- that's an actual issue as the regions of dark sky are shrinking.
> and are extremely easy to remove with the most basic of outlier rejection techniques; netizens often amplifiy outliers by max-stacking instead of outlier-rejected mean-stacking to make Starlink look much worse than it is
my understanding was that they are a problem on much bigger scale than yours "one dude with mobile telescope (or maybe just a camera?)"
sure, we don't have many film observatories anymore (where max-stacking is literally only thing they can do), but a lot of lower-to-medium scale observatories get polluted observations with not enough funding to clean up easily or too small FoV for cleanup to matter - frame gets ruined, observation needs to be longer for effect
Or more generally, let's say 10% of frames have satellite noise. That means there is 10% less observing you can do in a night. For amateurs, that is annoying. For professionals, that means less science can be done.
2. If you are doing photometry (measuring the brightness of something), even if the relative brightness isn't very much, it can introduce a lot of noise to the data. For many things, even the dimmest satellite is going to add more light than the change in brightness you are looking for.
Now to be fair for scientific research typically you can use the frame if the streak isn't too close to your object(s) of interest. And for pretty pictures you can often edit out the streaks. But even so, it's a problem more than you would think.
It's too much
There’s certainly more of them than there used to be, but the satellites aren’t bright enough to affect your eyes or distract too much from the stars. If you do see one it’s a fun little exercise to try and figure out what it is!
Ground-based light sources are the real threat to night skies.
Starlink gets a lot of attention because it's new, and because it's run by a polarizing guy who sucks.
Meanwhile, the airplane and streetlight situation has been destroying night sky photography for decades, to the point where photographers consult charts and have communities tracking the best times of years to minimize the hours of driving you have to do.
But let's "both are real issues" it, sure.
It still won't be as big of an issue for night sky photography, for reasons mentioned in the parent comment.
However, there are many other severe issues, of course. But for hobbyist and professional photography? Mitigable.
I can see a problem with 100x the current deployment, but the "other severe issues" kick in long before that, anyways.
(2) The standards for astrophotography and for professional astronomical measurements are somewhat different! Also, I think you meant median stacking; mean stacking doesn't handle outliers as well.
(3) Whataboutism. Besides, you'd get no argument from me about replacing the majority of air travel with high speed rail, even without considering lights.
I agree that city light pollution is probably the bigger problem, especially for the amateur/cultural angle, but these are two symptoms of the general cause of our economic system not valuing the sky (or the environment generally).
> replacing the majority of air travel with high speed rail
I absolutely LOVE high speed rail, but I will note that it is correlated with far more light pollution than air traffic. I say correlated because typically high speed rail is routed through high-density population centers, but if there aren't population centers, you'll have to have plans to create them in order to support the rail system itself.
Basically there is nowhere in the world that has both high speed rail AND suitable for astronomy. If you want to find dark skies in China for example you have to get far away from all the high speed rail areas of the country.
Rail travel has stops and slowdowns in more populated areas that make it a bit slower than the advertised top speeds.
My point was that if you want replace, say, San Francisco <-> Las Vegas with HSR you're going to inevitably have to wreck a chunk of Bortle 1 dark skies in the Sierra or Death Valley.
Doesn't mean I'm against HSR but it has to be done thoughtfully.
This is such a misanthropic point of view.
Nobody "creates" population centers. People aren't created out of raw clay, they already exist.
If population centers are "created" it's because people already exist and want to live in a specific place, often time urban.
And if they wouldn't go to these population centers they wouldn't live in caves in the dark. They would be spread over many more places, yes, creating lower levels of light pollution but lots more of them, covering a lot more land.
All you're describing is population redistribution, not population creation. Urban centers have very low fertility rates, which actually reduces populations...
People don't live in caves, they will create light pollution everywhere, anyway. Might as well put them in small and dense population centers.
I hate reading comprehension these days :-)
That's demonstrably false, population centers are created all the time. The fact that populations don't spontaneously appear is irrelevant.
Again, reading comprehension, context, and I guess, typical techie obtuseness.
Most people didn't care about dark skys in the first place and still don't.
Most people were never given the opportunity to care.
Or are you suggesting that by the time they are in the Navy, it's after the age where one might be most easily encouraged to care?
There's another aspect to it, though — parent was in a navy ship, surrounded by sailors. That's a very specific population, in a very specific situation, and it's not necessarily true that that's the right crowd or situation to care (though it baffles me how a sailor at sea might look up at the stars without being in awe of the thought "damn, my predecessors navigated based on those")
I would argue that probably not looking up all the time at night with predators around was an evolutionary trait though! (Semi joking)
Some pictures: https://milieufederatie.nl/nieuws/6-op-de-10-nederlanders-wi...
Where I live, it usually impossible due to nights being too cold (okay, you can use sleeping bags/extra blankets etc), clouds, or... mosquitos.
But when/where it's not: highly recommended! "Spaceship Earth" in progress.
But even here it’s under threat: a recent new retail development on the edge of the town (called “Three Parks”) emits so much light that it illuminates the nearby hills at night. The sad thing is that much of this light seems unnecessary to me: eg a hardware / garden retailer has enormous floodlights to illuminate their inner courtyard constantly at night, even when they’re closed.
The rest of the town has always been pretty good at minimising light pollution, with soft, modest and well designed street lighting in residential areas. But such considerations have been forgotten completely with the new development. Three Parks emits more light pollution than the rest of the town combined!
> If you've never seen truly dark skies, do yourself a favour and go see what they look like during true night
I think I went from only ever experiencing Bortle 5-6 to Bortle 1 when I visited Merzouga and Erg Chebbi. Blew my mind, made me really appreciate the extent of light pollution almost everywhere else I've been.
When I first learned about the "clouds are noticeably brighter than the sky" part of Bortle 5, it was like it flipped a switch in my brain. I can't avoid noticing it now.
Lunar regolith would probably be quite damaging to optics. It's nasty stuff. I have seen ideas for building liquid mirror telescopes on the moon, though.
As to the dark side of the moon, I would suggest a read of the story "A Walk in the Sun" - https://www.baen.com/Chapters/0671878522/0671878522___1.htm (the dusk terminator moves at about 10 mph (15 kph) at the equator).
Like O'Neill's research group killed off the plan with the big cylinders because you would construct solar power satellites out of plastic films with vapor deposited metal and semiconductors and these would be light enough to send up from Earth and assemble in space.
Radio telescopes only need a wire mesh to deploy (rather than polished optical mirrors). https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/arecibo-tel... has a view under Arecibo.
https://www.nasa.gov/general/lunar-crater-radio-telescope-lc...
---
The liquid metal mirror telescopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-mirror_telescope are interesting in part because you can get liquid mercury temperatures near room temperature on Earth.
It's theoretically possible for the moon - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007Natur.447..979B/abstra...
A previously proposed liquid mirror telescope, based upon a spinning liquid metallic alloy, is not appropriate for infrared applications, which will require a liquid below 130K. Here we report the successful coating of an ionic liquid with silver. The surface is smooth and the silver coating is stable on a timescale of months. The underlying ionic liquid does not evaporate in a vacuum and remains liquid down to a temperature of 175K Given that there are ~10^6 simple and ~10^18 ternary ionic liquids, it should be possible to synthesize liquids with even lower melting temperatures.
Considering how little value we put on far more important things (like the climate or biodiversity), I'm not really surprised.
(I'm not a botanist or a farmer but I grow greenhouse veggies for fun)
Starlink is intended and used as solution for places and uses for which municipal internet is not an option at all
(is it usable at all as replacement for municipal internet? I would guess that you would overcrowd connection quite quickly)
I've been in some place with very dark skies, like Death Valley or Teide in the Canaries (https://www.teidebynight.com/tenerifes-dark-sky-reserves-hav...). It was great, but also not that much better than what I've seen closer to home in French countryside or in the alps. Maybe I didn't get the best conditions though.
Ah yes, that municipal internet in the Pacific Ocean. The municipal internet in the 1 person per square mile rural area. The municipal internet to mountain villages. The municipal internet running to airplanes. The municipal internet to the Antarctic research stations.
Tell me you don’t know the point of satellite internet without telling me.
If you want to make arguments against sat constellations so people can make long exposure photos, go for it. But don’t pretend there are actual viable alternatives to LEO sat internet.
Yet that person can receive mail, is within a few miles of a major highway, and is likely connected to or close to the electric grid.
Infrastructure is expensive. LEO Satellite internet is only cheaper because the environmental cost is not being accounted for.
Not an expert, but I would think greenhouse light pollution is not necessary for agriculture? It seems like obvious waste (money spent generating light that isn't going to photosynthesis), but I assume it's cheaper not to shield the lights than to shield them, so it's a matter of ROI and requiring people take care of their externalities.
Is there an economic argument that light shields will make agriculture in that area too expensive?
(FYI, it's a solved problem: https://de.made-in-china.com/co_zenong/product_Agriculture-P...)
Light pollution has dramatic negative consequences for wildlife and thereby our ecosystem we so heavily depend upon.
Would you rather have 2x the wilderness 80% degraded or 1x the wilderness 90% degraded? Unless your plan is to decide who starves to death, it's far better to have greenhouses where we already have farms!
Therefore I fully agree with you!
> instead of shutting down agriculture in the only marginal spot on the west coast you can grow food.
The Okanagan will be shocked to hear they can't do agriculture! Perhaps we could just turn off the greenhouse lights for a couple hours, or install retractable shields/mirorrs on top of the greenhouses.
lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=8.01&lat=49.6027&lon=-122.7672&state=eyJiYXNlbWFwIjoiTGF5ZXJCaW5nUm9hZCIsIm92ZXJsYXkiOiJzYl8yMDI1Iiwib3ZlcmxheWNvbG9yIjpmYWxzZSwib3ZlcmxheW9wYWNpdHkiOiI2MCIsImZlYXR1cmVzb3BhY2l0eSI6Ijg1In0=
Just install light shields.
But what if someone were uncomfortable briefly? Did you ever consider that? Technology exists to infantilize us while slowly ruining everything that makes us human. Shame on you for attempting to interrupt human progress.