• @XeroxCool@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    88 months ago

    For those that know about trails and the ease of removing them from images through stacking as I thought, it isn’t about that, despite the cover image. It’s about momentary glints disrupting searches for momentary events. Not too much more to the article though, just raising awareness

  • @wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    28 months ago

    What’s the point of looking at the stars of we never reach for them? At some point the telescopes have to move into space, we can’t stay earthbound forever

    • Chetzemoka
      link
      fedilink
      11
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      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?

      • beautiful_boater [he/him, any]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        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.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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?

      • @wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        No one is suggesting we shouldn’t have satellites.

        Many astronomers suggested exactly that, they were against the approval of starlink.

        we could regulate the reflectivity of satellites

        Starlink has been doing that for 3 years now. There are limits to how nonreflective they can get the satellites.

        • Chetzemoka
          link
          fedilink
          88 months ago

          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.

          • UlyssesT [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

          • @halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            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.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      58 months ago

      Throw enough glittering trash into orbit and your “can’t stay earthbound forever” platitudes become self-defeating because at some point nothing could be safely launched.

      • @wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        18 months ago

        The satellite constellations are in LEO. Kessler syndrome is literally not possible at that altitude.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I already knew that; my point was that letting your euphorically under-regulated corporate saviors do whatever they please (which can and probably will include higher orbit satellite junk later on) under pretenses of pretentious “reach the stars” platitudes is interfering with actual contemporary scientific inquiry, right now.

          The pollution of each launch is significant, and the benefit of the janky low orbit network is questionable (except to the US military), especially because it requires constant additional launches.

          • sharedburdens [she/her, comrade/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            but have you considered that this under-regulated shlock allows for command and control in warzones across the world shitty internet service in “remote areas”

    • beautiful_boater [he/him, any]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      48 months ago

      Man, I just went to a good seminar today on finding habitable exoplanets that emphasized that we currently need ground based telescopes, because it is still impractical to make 30+ meter telescopes in space and would be very expensive, even if could be done. But progress is just launching a bunch of bullshit into orbit to avoid real investment in infrastructure like fiber and other telecommunication lines.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        But progress is just launching a bunch of bullshit into orbit to avoid real investment in infrastructure like fiber and other telecommunication lines.

        With sufficient tweets/xeets/whatever about how “we can’t stay earthbound forever” and “we must spread the light of consciousness to the stars,” extremely credulous “I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE” bazinga brains will happily see actual science being trampled upon in favor of performative spectacle bullshit.

      • UlyssesT [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        38 months ago

        Just use fluffy euphoric speeches about destiny and reaching for the stars, prattle that could fit in a movie with a soundtrack composed by Hans Zimmer, and you can sell the “I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE” crowd almost anything, including actual contempt and dismissal for actual scientists (astronomers in this case). so-true

      • @CmdrShepard
        link
        English
        28 months ago

        The people with the strongest opinions are almost always the least informed.

    • @quicksand@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      It’s reflected light from the Sun as they orbit, not lights installed on them. Maybe they can use a non-reflective coating or something for new ones though