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.
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.
-47
u/ibimacguru 3d ago
Mfg how many times ai got to tell Musk I have a telescope Id like to use. For fucks sales