Starlink is increasingly interfering with astronomy, scientists say : astronomy

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As someone that uses Starlink due to nothing else being in my area, I hate everything about this. Sure the convenience of having internet wherever I want is nice, but this still sucks. Especially since I'm a huge space nerd so this shit just hurts my soul.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

In your defense, there should be internet in your area but the government dropped the ball and let Comcast scam them.

[–] TommySoda@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

My favorite part is that bout 5 miles down the highway they have fibre optic. They've been "installing" it for about 4 or 5 years now. They've had the spool just sitting outside for half that time.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

God that's just depressing

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

5 miles is doable with a wirless link. it of course depends on other factors, like having visibility, but it is not impossible.

[–] PennyRoyal@sh.itjust.works 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It’s not the only problem with them, and potentially not the biggest either - there is no plan to remove or maintain them when they die other than de-orbiting them into the upper atmosphere. A recent study suggests that this will critically harm the ozone layer, and that adding metallic particles in the quantities implied by the number of starlink satellites that Elmo plans to launch could do far more damage to the ozone layer than our previous attempts to screw it up!

Article - https://www.sciencealert.com/satellites-like-starlink-could-pose-new-threat-to-our-healing-ozone-layer

Study - https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024GL109280

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah, aluminium oxide particles may be a problem. Some scientists are experimenting with replacing aluminium with wood. I wonder if this would be feasible on future Starlink sats.

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 7 points 3 months ago

I can track them with a 16" Dob they're that common

[–] jeena@piefed.jeena.net 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

So after some time they all will come down und burn up, what time frame are we talking about?

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The number of satellites in orbit around Earth is rapidly increasing, with some 100,000 expected to be in place by 2030. And as their numbers grow, so does the difficulty of observing the universe from Earth.

Starlink’s satellites are bright enough that astronomers have decried them as an existential threat for as long as SpaceX has been launching them into orbit. While the company has taken some measures to mitigate how shiny they appear from Earth, their increased number and the many other satellites being launched means that their light pollution is “threatening the entirety of ground-based astronomy in every wavelength and in different ways,” astronomers told the BBC. There is a fear that soon, space observation might begin to look like a “windshield of bugs,” and become unfeasible, a researcher at the Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile told The New York Times.

So basically, at least during the rest of this decade, our billion dollar telescopes, radio and optical, are blind on different frequencies or are only able to obtain diffuse resolution.

[+] notfromhere@lemmy.ml -17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

As technology advances, our ability to observe the universe from space far surpasses ground-based telescopes. While I appreciate amateur astronomy, let's acknowledge that satellites like those in low Earth orbit can occasionally interfere with surface observations. Instead of criticizing their presence, perhaps we could focus on working together to minimize disruptions and support continued space exploration – after all, observatories like JWST are pushing the boundaries of our understanding.

[–] BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is an insane take. “While I appreciate amateur astronomy” - my dude, it’s not amateurs being affected here. You want to let a small number of tools become the only way humanity has to make these kinds of observations? You think the tools up there can somehow be made to equal the capacity and accommodate the man hours required to do the science we do?

You’re out of your mind.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Don't forget important discoveries are also made by or with the help of amateurs, who permanently observe the night sky and measure the coordinates, i.e. the relative positions, of luminating objects. This allows others, mostly professionals, to calculate their motions and obtain information about the (hidden) masses, i.e. luminating and non luminating objects, inducing and influencing them. By this means, black holes, 'dark' masses, or asteroids, 'fast' moving illuminated objects, have been and are beeing discovered.

[–] BrundleFly2077@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Discoveries about and observations of comets, supernovae, even exoplanet transits are regularly being enriched or even driven in some cases by “amateur” astronomers.

This guy’s legit out of his mind or he’s been huffing Elon’s musk.

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Considering their instance, I'd assume they're more out of their mind than huffing Elmo.

Another important part in this argumentation is that each type of telescope has its use case:
Extraterrestrial telescopes, as they are not objected by atmospheric blur can obtain much better 'images' from the cosmos even of weak, low brightness signals, which makes them best for observing the 'far' cosmos until the boundaries of recognition.
Yet, they are and always will be much more expensive and more difficult to maintain than terrestrial telescopes. Thus, using them for observing our cosmic front yard, the milky way, is like shooting with canons at sparrows.
Due to their cost, extraterrestrial telescopes also will always be 'few', too few to effectively keep track of the objects around us. Thus, 'cheap' terrestrial telescopes, large professional ones and small ones run by amateurs, will always be needed to observe the objects 'closely' around us, i.e. in our galaxis.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago

Yes, extraterrestrial telescopes are hard. And, we need more of them. And we need to give access to amateurs.

[–] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Suggesting that we move towards space-based astronomy doesn't mean he's out of his mind. He might not be a professional astronomer or astrophysicist, but that hardly indicates insanity.

They had an opinion and expressed it. You can then reply and explain why you disagree. No need to call them insane for expressing their thoughts.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The tools “up there” could be made to rival the capacity and accommodate the man hours required to more science than we do now. The problem is it’s hard and expensive and nobody wants to try because of that fact. It’s becoming easier with cheaper launch vehicles and better communications infrastructure. Now we need folks to start identifying the best locations to send new observation satellites and then start building and launching them.

Your take is very conservative and counter to technological progress and I don’t appreciate the personal attack. We can have a meaningful conversation without that crap.

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You would be hard pushed to build something like the SKA in space given it spans multiple countries and a significant arc of the earth.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Imagine one orbiting each planet and what we can observe.

[–] stsquad@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

I can imagine it but it certainly won't be practical to implement in our lifetimes. There are certainly some observatories that benefit from being based in space (optical and infrared) and even gravitational detectors such as laser interferometers. However aside from the wide capture area radio telescopes need large amounts of compute to separate the signal from the noise. The amount of data that needs to be processed makes space based radio observatories very hard to implement.

Maybe the dark side of the moon will make a decent observatory one day but we haven't set foot on the place for decades, let alone built anything so complex.

Astronomy