Telescopes searching for brief flashes like supernovae and asteroids have to contend with a rising number of glints from satellites. These glints can last for a fraction of a second, but they're bright enough to be recorded as a starlike object in the field of view of a survey like the Vera Rubin Observatory. In a new study, astronomers identified tens of thousands of these glints captured by a survey telescope, and there could be 80,000/hour happening across the sky.
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?
“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”
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.
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?
Many astronomers suggested exactly that, they were against the approval of starlink.
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.