68 replies to this topic

[John Fitzgerald]

Threads like this are soon locked.  Go complain on reddit.

[wargrafix]

Threads like this are soon locked.  Go complain on reddit.

yup. This thread is tied up in knots

[Greyfox_MT]

It is too bad that optical telescopes and observatories can't force the same type of restrictions on surrounding areas like radio observatories do.

 

I live right on the edge of the radio quiet zone for Greenbank Radio Observatory.  It even restricts state and local emergency communication systems. 

[xiando]

It is too bad that optical telescopes and observatories can't force the same type of restrictions on surrounding areas like radio observatories do.

Lol, if that were the case, there'd be horizon wide blackout requirements almost everywhere in the developed areas of the USA. Virtually the entirety of the US east of the Mississippi (and the not-sparsely-populated parts of Canada above us) would be under mandatory blackout conditions every night, as well as almost the entirety of the west coast.  There are a ton of visual observatories from High school to federal level, even discounting all the astronomical society sites and home-based hobby sites

 

And ftr, most high end, recognized observatories of all kinds (performing important science) are already granted protections, be they radio or optical. (probably even including satellite pathing or syncing to at least some extent)

Edited by xiando, 13 May 2022 - 08:50 PM.

[aatt]

Sounds pretty awesome! One can dream…

Edited by aatt, 13 May 2022 - 09:42 PM.

[osbourne one-nil]

If we could stick to light pollution issues regarding Starlink rather than any personal or social-economic commentary, this thread might just survive!

[Markor]

As a frequent binocular observer I’m noticing more satellites, more frequently, in the 5 degree field I usually use. I attribute much of the increase to Starlink. In fairness though Elon Musk is the only one I know of who has tried to reduce the reflectivity of his satellites. See https://skyandtelesc...-still-visible/ . I know of no similar effort from his competitors. This is an area that astronomical organizations and dark sky advocates can continue to push on.

[earlyriser]

The satellites seem to be visible when first launched but im not sure how visible they are once they're in orbit.

 

Jon

In my experience, they are most noticeable in the hours before dawn and after sunset.  Depending on where you live and what time of year it is, there should be a few hours in the middle of the night when they are in Earth's shadow and thus invisible.   About a week ago, I saw a long line of them in the pre-dawn sky.  They appeared to pop up out of the void as they emerged from the Earth's shadow near the meridian somewhere in Ophiuchus/Scorpio, and travelled northeastward.

[earlyriser]

The extension of the Internet into uninhabited areas, and the ability to work from home from remote areas this will provide, is probably a more serious threat to dark skies than the satellites themselves.  Imagine what will happen as more and more folks move away from the cities seeking a quieter life, bringing their outdoor lighting with them of course. 

Edited by earlyriser, 16 May 2022 - 01:28 PM.

[mutairy]

Im surprised the forum allows such posts.

 

what Starlink provides to humanity is an inovative internet experience that no one has seen before. you might not feel the diff however world wide easy access of internet is way more important than some guy who does astrophotography for a hobby.

 

Anyways PI removes all that in post processing.

[ion]

Anyways PI removes all that in post processing.

We're so doomed

[bobzeq25]

Stopping Elon Musk is easily done.

 

Amass more money than he has.  Then you'll have more influence.

 

Roughly, you'll need something in excess of 200 billion dollars.  I suppose you could start a GoFundMe.

Edited by bobzeq25, 18 May 2022 - 04:58 PM.

[xiando]

"Roughly, you'll need something in excess of 200 billion dollars.  I suppose you could start a GoFundMe."

 

  funniest comment I've seen. 

[Linwood]

Stopping Elon Musk is easily done.

 

Amass more money than he has.  Then you'll have more influence.

 

Roughly, you'll need something in excess of 200 billion dollars.  I suppose you could start a GoFundMe.

 

I volunteer.   I will work diligently on it.  I need only 400 billion dollars as seed money, and within no more than a year, I will turn that into 200 billion.

 

I will also at the end of a year have one heck of a telescope.  

 

Let me know how the money will arrive, if it's in bags of 20's, I need to rent some storage space. 

 

(This comes from the old airline strategy -- how do you make a small fortune in the Airline industry?   Start with a large one.  Not original, and probably didn't start there, I just heard it there first.) 

[Rickycardo]

Same in autos. To be moderately wealthy in racing you need to start out filthy rich.

[bobzeq25]

 

(This comes from the old airline strategy -- how do you make a small fortune in the Airline industry?   Start with a large one.  Not original, and probably didn't start there, I just heard it there first.) 

One often quoted source is Lord Hesketh who started a personally funded Hesketh Formula One team in the mid 1970s.  Had some success, then he decided it was too expensive after about 3 years.

 

James Hunt won with a Hesketh 308 in 1975 at Zandvoort, beating Niki Lauda.  The Hesketh's one and only victory.  The team finished 4th in the F1 Championship that year, their high water mark.
 

Edited by bobzeq25, 19 May 2022 - 01:06 AM.

[osbourne one-nil]

Excellent, but can we stick to a light pollution theme please!

[Linwood]

So light pollution.... 

 

I am genuinely curious, why the two schools of thought on satellite trails. 

 

Some of us (I am one) are slightly annoyed but otherwise do not care, as pixel rejection algorithms are good and remove them without any effort.  I've got far worse airplane trails and sometimes they require extra care (basically turning on large structure rejection), but even there almost never an issue. 

 

Some go ballistic, talk about all the ruined exposures (I take it actually culling them). 

 

Is this just a case of software, that some software in use is not good at it? 

 

Or are there still a lot of people doing single (or very few) exposures, as opposed to stacking enough for pixel rejection? 

[bobzeq25]

So light pollution.... 

 

I am genuinely curious, why the two schools of thought on satellite trails. 

 

Some of us (I am one) are slightly annoyed but otherwise do not care, as pixel rejection algorithms are good and remove them without any effort.  I've got far worse airplane trails and sometimes they require extra care (basically turning on large structure rejection), but even there almost never an issue. 

 

Some go ballistic, talk about all the ruined exposures (I take it actually culling them). 

 

Is this just a case of software, that some software in use is not good at it? 

 

Or are there still a lot of people doing single (or very few) exposures, as opposed to stacking enough for pixel rejection? 

It's a combination of things, and the technical data acquisition/processing issues you cite are not very important in the scheme of things.

 

People are dismayed by the increase of light pollution in general.

 

People are concerned that other things seem to dominate over dark skies.

 

Some people increasing light pollution to achieve other ends elicit an emotional response.  Neighbors or local authorities who put in strong lighting (the nature of which may, like LEDs, make acquisition/processing issues worse) are a particular source of frustration.

 

The technical matter of how to reduce the effects of light pollution in acquisition/processing take a place _far_ behind those.  Among many things, some peoples concern is visual, either entirely, or as an auxiliary activity.

Edited by bobzeq25, 19 May 2022 - 09:45 AM.

[ion]

So light pollution.... 
 
I am genuinely curious, why the two schools of thought on satellite trails. 
 
Some of us (I am one) are slightly annoyed but otherwise do not care, as pixel rejection algorithms are good and remove them without any effort.

A surprising number of astrophotographers appear to exist in a mental
bubble that magically corrects any perceived aberrations that may intrude
upon their artificial version of reality. Those of us who enjoy or even
prefer direct visual observation of the universe can't edit the dis-aster
(bad-stars) out of the eyepiece nor can we install a handy software
algorithm in our visual cortex to eliminate the apparition of space junk.
The view you care about is artifical and can be fixed in post, the view
we care about is real-time and being deliberately ruined forever...

[Linwood]

So I think at least in part @ion and @bobzeq25 missed what I was focusing on... 

 

Light pollution is awful, it is going to ruin this hobby.  It is driven by, I think quite literally, urbanites and suburbanites fear of the dark, so they push local authorities to bring daylight into the night, so while out walking fluffy they feel safe.  Emphasis on "feel". 

 

There are also more legitimate (i.e. necessary) intrusion like sporting stadiums, where lights really are needed, but that move further out of city centers and spread the problem around.

 

But... the majority of the angst and complaining appears aimed at satellite trails and billionaires.  Setting aside whether complaints there are more aimed at the billionaires than the trails -- that is the part I do not understand.  The people wanting to boycott Musk (or whatever) don't show up at HOA meetings and town councils and demand a reduction in street lights?  They don't even complain about street lights. I'd wager heavily some of them ASK for more street lights so they can walk Fluffy more easily at night.

 

I just think this topic, and all this angst, is mis-directed.  Go after up-pointing lights, go after lights on streets with no pedestrian traffic, go after excessive lights.  I wish I could say go after LED's (and broad spectrum) but honestly that's good public policy for cost reasons, but maybe they could be better designed. 

 

But why are star trails everyone's big focus.

 

As to star trails screwing up visual -- I do not do visual, but I hang around people that do, and frankly I've heard FAR more people excited by catching a satellite in view than any indication their view through a telescope was ruined by it.  I've been on (mostly visual) club calls where people shared information about recently launched groups that were still moving as a group, when to observe them. I have yet to hear a visual observer say "I was looking at M57 and this darn satellite came across and ruined my night". 

 

Now... "I was looking at M57 and my neighbor's flood lights came on and blinded me" is a more common refrain.

So... why are Satellites such an issue for people?  And not streetlights?   Neighbor lights. 

[BFaucett]

 

So... why are Satellites such an issue for people?  And not streetlights?   Neighbor lights.

And not aircraft flying at night?
 

Bob F.

 

Edited by BFaucett, 19 May 2022 - 01:02 PM.

[Linwood]

And not aircraft flying at night?

I think they are a larger problem in some areas (near airports) than satellites, though the cure is similar. 

 

I guess to me they fall into the "necessary" category though.  Planes need lights for safety.  One could argue that at altitude "see and avoid" is increasingly moot with TCAS and radar, but it's deeply ingrained and does still prevent accidents even in high radar coverage, highly controlled airspace. 

 

There's so much not-necessary we could go after.  Lights on interstates where pedestrians are not allowed, for example. 

 

Or near me there's about 6 miles of a big divided 4 lane road with no (zero) residential development, and mostly swamp and a bit of industrial area beside it.  Also no retail.   But it's brightly lit with street lights on both sides, because there are sidewalks because... well, who knows why there are side walks, as there are never people walking on it.

[ion]

So... why are Satellites such an issue for people?  And not streetlights?   Neighbor lights.

Your assumption is based on a false dichotomy. Those of us who
care are opposed to all forms of light pollution. It just so
happens that right now tens of thousands of bad stars are being
added to the sky. If you don't care about satellites why are you
posting your off-topic and irrelevant feelings to this thread?
Please stop trolling us, it is annoyinfg.

[Linwood]

Your assumption is based on a false dichotomy. Those of us who
care are opposed to all forms of light pollution. It just so
happens that right now tens of thousands of bad stars are being
added to the sky. If you don't care about satellites why are you
posting your off-topic and irrelevant feelings to this thread?
Please stop trolling us, it is annoyinfg.

How is questioning the rationale for the topic, that it does damage, off topic? 

 

 

Bashing Musk personally seems more off topic frankly than trying to understand why people even care. 

 

But fine, I'll go back to lurking.