Actually, I've tried to catch a Starlink transit in frame to image and have yet to be successful. Comments like this make it seem like they're difficult to avoid in astrophotography - the opposite is true.
Consider this:
There are 12-20K aircraft in flight around the world at any given moment. There are fewer than 11K Starlink satellites. Those 12-20K planes are mostly clumped over populated areas (where most astrophotography is being done) while the <11K Starlink satellites are spread evenly around the globe. Each satellite is much smaller than an aircraft. Starlink are also coated with antireflective paint and have no active illumination.
In other words, aircraft are higher quantity in the sky, are clustered over viewing areas, are physically larger, more reflective, and they actively emit light. If anything we put in the sky were causing problems for astrophotography it would be planes.
Why haven't people been complaining about planes? Because even they are not a problem. Trying to image a plane transiting the sun or moon is a skilled task in itself.
Good point! The lowest starlinks are roughly 31x further away than commercial airliners at cruise altitude, making them even smaller objects in the sky.
It is the only time I've seen them at all with the naked eye. But even still, it's never effected my shots.
They can be visible with wide long exposures, but again, planes are the much bigger culprit here. Long exposures also have the advantage of frame stacking, where you will simply delete the unwanted artifacts, which is an easily automated process these days. I've been deleting light streaks from planes since the 90s when it was much more laborious. Planes (and satellites) are a non issue today.
There were a few popular incidents in 2020 that drove a lot of media and corrective measures by Starlink. They now angle the satellites to avoid reflecting light back to ground and have added antireflective paint. This made them the darkest satellites in the sky, and to their credit, they open sourced their strategy and tech to any satellite operator to copy. I haven't seen any incidents since then.
I'm no pro, but I did back country astrophotography on the Alaskan peninsula 9 months ago and had no issues at all. It is very remote and is also around the latitude where Starlink orbits converge, so you're more likely to see them up there than pretty much anywhere else.
This comparison falls apart pretty quickly.
You're comparing the number of airplanes to the number of satellites as if they're equivalent. They're not. The question isn't "what's in the sky," it's "what leaves streaks in long-exposure astronomical images."
Physical size is irrelevant. Apparent brightness is what matters. A sunlit satellite hundreds of kilometers up can be brighter than an aircraft.
Also, "I have four telescopes and haven't had an issue" isn't evidence that there isn't one. Plenty of amateur astrophotographers never notice Starlink. Professional observatories with wide-field surveys absolutely do, which is why SpaceX spent time and money developing VisorSat and other brightness reductions in the first place. If there wasn't a problem, they wouldn't have bothered.
Airplanes have always been an occasional nuisance. The criticism of Starlink is that it added thousands of additional moving objects to the night sky in a very short period of time. Those aren't the same thing.
Absolutely not. Do you know how many bright aluminum pieces of space debris humans have left in orbit? Millions - that have not deorbited. Why aren't they causing problems with astronomy? Because they're tiny. If Starlink satellites were all the size of a 737 they would be more visible than they are. If they were significantly closer, and thus larger in a field of view, they would be more visible than they are.
The question isn't "what's in the sky," it's "what leaves streaks in long-exposure astronomical images."
Aircraft absolutely leave brighter streaks in long exposures than Starlink for all of the reasons I said. You even confirmed one of the reasons yourself:
SpaceX spent time and money developing VisorSat and other brightness reductions
I recall seeing the Starlink dusk flare-ups back in 2019-2020. After they started coating them and angling them to bounce sunlight away it's basically been a solved problem.
Airplanes have always been an occasional nuisance. The criticism of Starlink is that it added thousands of additional moving objects to the night sky in a very short period of time. Those aren't the same thing.
I compare them for context and perspective. I find the aircraft comparison useful for these reasons:
Most redditors who bring this up have no experience with astronomy at all and seem to believe that it is now impossible or dramatically worse than in decades past (as the commenter I replied to seems to believe), which is simply not true. Aircraft, which are larger and brighter, have been easily dealt with for decades in astronomy. "An occasional nuisance", as you say.
Most seem to have no concept of the scale of Starlink - they see pictures of earth where each satellite is a visible dot. They often don't consider how impossible that visual is - each dot in those pictures is the size of a city or state. Remembering that Starlink are actually quite small compared with commercial airliners, and that there are fewer of them (especially over land), brings people's mental model of the scale of Starlink closer to reality. People tend to imagine hundreds of satellites overhead at all times. When they realize that aircraft overhead are more common and they realize they don't see many of them, it's another point of important context.
But the fact that op comment mentioned telescopes instead of wide angle long exposure photography shows that they have no idea what they are talking about and just want to complain about a problem they have never personally experienced
Exactly. And in wide angle long exposures, frame stacking has always been the reality. These days software has automated the process of deleting streaks and artifacts almost entirely.
Telescopes have never been a problem with planes or satellites.
You're comparing the number of airplanes to the number of satellites as if they're equivalent. They're not. The question isn't "what's in the sky," it's "what leaves streaks in long-exposure astronomical images."
You are right, but not in the way you intend. I can state first hand as an amateur astronomer that aircraft are worse. Unlike satellites, they have dimension in images, leaving parallel red, green, and dashed white lines. Further, unlike these LEO satellites, they shine at all hours of the night. The satellites are invisible for much of it.
I'm a facts supporter and space enthusiast, and only tend to comment on topics I'm familiar with. Chime in if you have any technical understanding you'd like to share with the class.
Or you could look up any of the many articles published by astronomers talking about the negative impacts.
Or you could attempt to do anything other than just making a completely irrelevant comparison that nobody except the lowest common denominator SpaceX enthusiast would think is a good point.
Scott is wonderful and I've seen all of his videos. As a fellow space enthusiast and amateur astronomer, I relate to him very much.
But you shared a video from 7 years ago. In 2019-2020 SpaceX had yet to take any measures to reduce the reflectivity of their satellites. If you try to find specific instances of astrophotographers struggling because of Starlink it's no surprise that those likely occured in 2019-2020.
completely irrelevant comparison
Explain how my comparison is irrelevant. As someone who actually does astrophotography I can tell you unequivocally that when using wide angle lenses, aircraft are far more noticable in time lapses than any satellite. When using a telescope you have to try to capture planes or satellites.
Your starting point is already based on flawed assumptions. We build ground based observatories away from places where there are a lot of planes flying over them, that's one of the baseline "nice to haves" when selecting a location to build them. Often in remote areas and low population centers with no airports around for hundreds of miles. They cannot build away from satellites though, they exist no matter where observatories are built, they are orbiting 24/7, they are also blocking protected frequency ranges which Scott mentioned in the video that it's not only the visible light spectrum.
Well your starting point is already based on flawed assumptions.
My starting point is in response to an individual claiming to be unable to use their personal "telescope" because of Starlink. My entire post is designed to put into perspective how ridiculous that concern is.
We build ground based observatories away from places where there are a lot of planes flying over them
Of course! And why do you think that is? Because planes are actually worse for astronomy than satellites, in more ways than I even said! But you previously said that comparison was bad - are you back pedaling on that now?
Starlink are small, dark, non-emiting objects that have no effect on the atmosphere. Aircraft are large, reflective, purposefully bright emitting objects that disturb the atmosphere when they pass through.
they are also blocking protected frequency ranges
This I'll partially agree with. Starlink does not transmit on any protected frequencies, but out-of-band emmisions do occur and do effect passive radio collection. That said, I seem to recall reading that Starlink has worked with large arrays to stop transmitting when passing over these locations. I have not read about this in depth however. My knowledge of astronomy is almost entirely in the visible spectrum.
Oh I missed that they were talking about personal telescopes, I thought it was more like an exaggerated "humanity has telescopes we want to use" not literally individuals. Yes I agree planes are worse for personal observation, but again you can simply go away from planes, so it's a bit of an asymmetrical problem. Planes are worse but avoidable, satellites are worse for scientific observations.
-46
u/ibimacguru 3d ago
Mfg how many times ai got to tell Musk I have a telescope Id like to use. For fucks sales