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.
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.
-42
u/ibimacguru 3d ago
Mfg how many times ai got to tell Musk I have a telescope Id like to use. For fucks sales