Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Scientist: These new SpaceX Starlink satellites are farking up my astronomy and such   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Satellite, Sky, Astronomy, Astronomer, Orbit, Telescope, launching batches of dozens of satellites, Spacecraft  
•       •       •

1355 clicks; posted to Fandom » on 08 Aug 2020 at 7:35 AM (11 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



84 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-08-08 12:49:37 PM  

GoldSpider: A LOT of science is done by amateur astronomers, and they sure as shiat aren't going to just put telescopes into space.


They should petition Musk to put telescopes on each of the Starlink sats and make their output data freely available.
 
2020-08-08 3:05:02 PM  

falkone32: starlink trajectories are not predictable


What makes their orbits less predictable than other orbits?
 
2020-08-08 4:12:10 PM  

johnny_vegas: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

As Webb taught us, that's easy!


You are looking at this the wrong way. Instead of one colossal telescope we can have 10,000 small ones.  Throw in accurate positioning and some clever software and we can do wonders.

A system like that would need  amateurs doing much of the actual observation just because of the shear volume of data.
 
2020-08-08 4:29:41 PM  

Axeofjudgement: Benjimin_Dover: blot out faint astronomical objects, and even hinder searches for killer asteroids.


Nothing lost since knowing there is a killer asteroid is worthless information. There's nothing that you can do about them.  It's not like the Earth has a steering wheel that somebody can jerk to avoid one.

I think you mixed up the analogy.

In this instance isn't the asteroid the car and the earth is the deer in the middle of the road?


Doesn't really matter. I chose one and went with it. I could have just easily said that there's not a steering servo on ths asteroids to be remotely controlled.

Until there is something that we can do about them, searching for them is wasted resources that could have been spent on finding that something.

Dick asteroid searcher tech: "Hey, Joe. We found this killer astetoid."
Joe asteroid killer tech supervisor: "Yeah. I wish we could do something about it but we pissed all the money away searching for those things."
 
2020-08-08 4:54:54 PM  

pehvbot: johnny_vegas: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

As Webb taught us, that's easy!

You are looking at this the wrong way. Instead of one colossal telescope we can have 10,000 small ones.  Throw in accurate positioning and some clever software and we can do wonders.

A system like that would need  amateurs doing much of the actual observation just because of the shear volume of data.


That's a really interesting idea
 
2020-08-08 5:11:49 PM  

Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.


Fark that. That's holding taxpayers hostage. Fark that.

And fark that solution for pricing ordinary people out of astronomy.
 
2020-08-08 5:15:01 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Can't wait for the coal industry's solution to solar power

[Fark user image 425x174]
[Fark user image 425x177]


Pure folly - if man blocks out the sun machines will simply turn to ... alternative sources of power.
 
2020-08-08 5:17:14 PM  

pehvbot: johnny_vegas: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

As Webb taught us, that's easy!

You are looking at this the wrong way. Instead of one colossal telescope we can have 10,000 small ones.  Throw in accurate positioning and some clever software and we can do wonders.

A system like that would need  amateurs doing much of the actual observation just because of the shear volume of data.


A lot of these massive telescopes are exactly that, anyway; a ton of smaller telescopes, generating collated data.  The image that they created recently, of the black hole at the center of M87, was using a "telescope" the width of the Earth; the Event Horizon Telescope, by hooking together data from radio telescopes around the globe.

We can, in theory, do the same thing in space, and get an even wider scope, with less atmospheric interference for those wavelengths that the atmosphere blocks.
 
2020-08-08 5:35:31 PM  
On one hand, ground based astronomy is doomed and space telescopes become increasingly important.

On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.
 
2020-08-08 5:45:30 PM  

meanmutton: farkeruk: Destructor: Also, why are Space Telescopes so expensive. I mean, it's just a system of lenses and mirrors, a guidance system, some sort of station keeping system, and that's pretty much it. Stop thinking "NASA" where every gyroscope needs parts from the 50 states for political reasons. And start thinking "SpaceX".

Also, NASA using the Shuttle, which requires a farking expensive manned space launch.

SpaceX are at around $50K/kilo now. I reckon you could get one into space with crowdfunding/corporate donations and so forth.

You think crowdfunding and corporate donations will get you to $150 billion dollars to put a single 3,000 tonne telescope into space?


Amateur astronomers aren't building the James Webb. A cube sat with some optics onboard might not be crazy expensive and will outperform any backyard scope.
 
2020-08-08 5:50:57 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On one hand, ground based astronomy is doomed and space telescopes become increasingly important.

On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.


Even before that, Space was going to follow the railroad model.
It's too valuable to destroy assets or orbital lanes that you could take over and use for your own benefit.  At least until things are so farked that you'd gladly ruin everything to try and stall the inevitable.

Satellites are still vulnerable if an enemy decides to go all or nothing on you.  At which point it's less about selectively destroying targets and more about launching a few tons of ball bearings into random orbits.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-08-08 5:51:44 PM  
Long exposures are being farked up by objects flying through the field of view? This would be a real problem if photographic film was being used to capture these long exposure images, but if you are not from the stone age you are capturing your images digitally and this can be dealt with a bit of ingenuity. Instead of updating the same image with new data continuously you need to collect your data as a series of images so you can toss out or crop any with artifacts before summing them all together to create the final image showing the faint object you targeted. Quit biatching about it write it up as your Phd project already.
 
2020-08-08 6:07:42 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On one hand, ground based astronomy is doomed and space telescopes become increasingly important.

On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.


Or a few 55-gallon drums full of sand and a stick of dynamite launched into the right orbital plane.
 
2020-08-08 7:53:49 PM  

maxheck: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.
Or a few 55-gallon drums full of sand and a stick of dynamite launched into the right orbital plane.


Wait--so how much would something like that cost, anyway? Just hypothetically.
 
2020-08-08 8:35:23 PM  

cryinoutloud: maxheck: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.
Or a few 55-gallon drums full of sand and a stick of dynamite launched into the right orbital plane.

Wait--so how much would something like that cost, anyway? Just hypothetically.


One 55 gallon drum can hold just over 700lbs of sand. Assuming two drums qualifies as "a few" and ~400lbs for dynamite, weight the drums, remote detonation equipment, etc... you are looking at 1800lbs. SpaceX's ride-share program has a max weight of 1830lbs. This 1800lb ride-share would cost $4,080,000 acording to SpaceX's website. Adding the cost of the materials and transport to launch site you are looking at $4,100,000 give or take a few thousand.
 
2020-08-08 9:32:09 PM  

Peach_Fuz: cryinoutloud: maxheck: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.
Or a few 55-gallon drums full of sand and a stick of dynamite launched into the right orbital plane.

Wait--so how much would something like that cost, anyway? Just hypothetically.

One 55 gallon drum can hold just over 700lbs of sand. Assuming two drums qualifies as "a few" and ~400lbs for dynamite, weight the drums, remote detonation equipment, etc... you are looking at 1800lbs. SpaceX's ride-share program has a max weight of 1830lbs. This 1800lb ride-share would cost $4,080,000 acording to SpaceX's website. Adding the cost of the materials and transport to launch site you are looking at $4,100,000 give or take a few thousand.


In space, no one can hear you cryinoutloud.
 
2020-08-08 10:51:28 PM  
way south:
/this article pops up every starlink launch.
/problems overblown, most amateur astronomers don't have equipment sensitive enough to be affected.


Below is a picture taken with a dslr camera.  The starlinks barely affected anything at all.

Fark user imageView Full Size

Yes, they can affect even the most basic equipment.
 
2020-08-08 11:55:16 PM  
It's alright guys, the validity of astrology remains unaffected.
 
2020-08-09 12:18:32 AM  

fragMasterFlash: Long exposures are being farked up by objects flying through the field of view? This would be a real problem if photographic film was being used to capture these long exposure images, but if you are not from the stone age you are capturing your images digitally and this can be dealt with a bit of ingenuity. Instead of updating the same image with new data continuously you need to collect your data as a series of images so you can toss out or crop any with artifacts before summing them all together to create the final image showing the faint object you targeted. Quit biatching about it write it up as your Phd project already.


I can't believe anyone took the time to write out such complete and utter nonsense on a subject.

A long exposure isn't a movie, digital or film, you're not taking a thousand images and stringing them together. A digital camera works exactly the same as an analogue camera. You're exposing a sensor that can only increase in value to light and the more light it gets the more the sensor number goes up. The one next to it does the same. Then when you're done it notes down the numbers of each sensor, records it as one image, and wipes them all.

A modern computer, let alone a modern camera, won't have the processing power required for a very long time to record each photon of light hitting a sensor then wipe it in real time in order for it to be ready for the next one which would be required to achieve what you propose.

Any frame rate that isn't every photo real time would get every single instance of the higher intensity light sources and miss a lot of the low intensity light sources during the record and wipe cycle, utterly defeating the purpose of the whole exercise.
 
2020-08-09 12:23:24 AM  
Even future tech probably couldn't achieve it the more I think of it, it would have to complete the whole record and wipe cycle faster than the highest frequency light source, and time it accordingly to activate between photons, so it couldn't miss any data. Otherwise photons will be hitting the sensor it whilst it's busy doing other stuff and they'll get ignored.
 
2020-08-09 12:35:58 AM  

dyhchong: I can't believe anyone took the time to write out such complete and utter nonsense on a subject.


I can't believe you think CCD sensors persist accumulated light rather than being sampled for instantaneous levels periodically. Signal processing 101 should have taught you that signal sums coherently while noise does not. If you think that persisting a loop of raw CCD data is beyond them realm of possibility then you are a decade behind the times.

/fark it, we'll fix it in post
 
2020-08-09 12:54:21 AM  

fragMasterFlash: dyhchong: I can't believe anyone took the time to write out such complete and utter nonsense on a subject.

I can't believe you think CCD sensors persist accumulated light rather than being sampled for instantaneous levels periodically. Signal processing 101 should have taught you that signal sums coherently while noise does not. If you think that persisting a loop of raw CCD data is beyond them realm of possibility then you are a decade behind the times.

/fark it, we'll fix it in post


Lol, CCDs and you're suggesting I'm a decade behind the times.
 
2020-08-09 1:11:09 AM  

dyhchong: fragMasterFlash: Long exposures are being farked up by objects flying through the field of view? This would be a real problem if photographic film was being used to capture these long exposure images, but if you are not from the stone age you are capturing your images digitally and this can be dealt with a bit of ingenuity. Instead of updating the same image with new data continuously you need to collect your data as a series of images so you can toss out or crop any with artifacts before summing them all together to create the final image showing the faint object you targeted. Quit biatching about it write it up as your Phd project already.

I can't believe anyone took the time to write out such complete and utter nonsense on a subject.

A long exposure isn't a movie, digital or film, you're not taking a thousand images and stringing them together. A digital camera works exactly the same as an analogue camera. You're exposing a sensor that can only increase in value to light and the more light it gets the more the sensor number goes up. The one next to it does the same. Then when you're done it notes down the numbers of each sensor, records it as one image, and wipes them all.

A modern computer, let alone a modern camera, won't have the processing power required for a very long time to record each photon of light hitting a sensor then wipe it in real time in order for it to be ready for the next one which would be required to achieve what you propose.

Any frame rate that isn't every photo real time would get every single instance of the higher intensity light sources and miss a lot of the low intensity light sources during the record and wipe cycle, utterly defeating the purpose of the whole exercise.


From my layman's perspective... you say that the cameras essentially work by taking data over a timescale and recording the total energy each pixel received which is then translated into an image, correct? Couldn't the camera then decrease the brightness value of given pixels by a known amount which you could possibly calculate from the known parameters of satellites, or some kind of calibration? If the satellites were of a similar apparent magnitude to the objects of interest (or even brighter, since it'll spend less time in short), there shouldn't be any saturation to make this much more complicated. I was told an idea similar to this was wrong before, but I don't fully understand why.
 
2020-08-09 1:26:33 AM  

meanmutton: Marcus Aurelius: meanmutton: Starlink isn't going to "bring broadband to all the boonies at once"

More than 90% of Starlink's coverage is over what I would classify as "boonies".  Above and below 60 degrees is largely tundra, not boonies.  So it technically leaves a sliver of boonies uncovered.

At their limit when complete, they only have capacity for a few million subscribers. The vast majority of people won't be able to subscribe to their network.


That's not even close to true.

The beta only has capacity for a few million subscribers.

The full 2-constellation network will be able to handle billions.
 
2020-08-09 7:32:17 AM  

Snarfangel: There is only one answer:
[Fark user image image 850x850]


"That's no moo- Oh, yes it is. Nevermind."
 
2020-08-09 7:36:10 AM  

Bennie Crabtree: Destructor: Astronomers, your telescopes need to be in space. Lean on Musk to get them up there for you.

This is your leverage.

Fark that. That's holding taxpayers hostage. Fark that.

And fark that solution for pricing ordinary people out of astronomy.


Starlink promises a societal solution to a growing problem of internet censorship. That's its value. If that means my long term exposure will require some crop outs until humanity grows the fark up, so be it.
 
2020-08-09 8:34:00 AM  

Peach_Fuz: cryinoutloud: maxheck: Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: On the other hand, good luck destroying the enemy's internet and communications in a war, as that war instead becomes about controlling the cloud of internet satellites.  You just won't be able to bring enough anti-satellite weapons into play to do otherwise until you bring large numbers of high power lasers on line.
Or a few 55-gallon drums full of sand and a stick of dynamite launched into the right orbital plane.

Wait--so how much would something like that cost, anyway? Just hypothetically.

One 55 gallon drum can hold just over 700lbs of sand. Assuming two drums qualifies as "a few" and ~400lbs for dynamite, weight the drums, remote detonation equipment, etc... you are looking at 1800lbs. SpaceX's ride-share program has a max weight of 1830lbs. This 1800lb ride-share would cost $4,080,000 acording to SpaceX's website. Adding the cost of the materials and transport to launch site you are looking at $4,100,000 give or take a few thousand.


I don't think anyone would be sending up a "denial bomb" on a civiliian spacecraft at commercial rates. I *AM* pretty sure Iran and North Korea can lob something into LEO on a one-way trip for a lot cheaper, especially when they don't have to care about fine accuracy or treating the cargo gently.


There are quite a few countries who have this capability right now, and unlike the major powers they don't depend on LEO for their military capability very much.
 
2020-08-09 8:53:47 AM  

Invincible: meanmutton: farkeruk: Destructor: Also, why are Space Telescopes so expensive. I mean, it's just a system of lenses and mirrors, a guidance system, some sort of station keeping system, and that's pretty much it. Stop thinking "NASA" where every gyroscope needs parts from the 50 states for political reasons. And start thinking "SpaceX".

Also, NASA using the Shuttle, which requires a farking expensive manned space launch.

SpaceX are at around $50K/kilo now. I reckon you could get one into space with crowdfunding/corporate donations and so forth.

You think crowdfunding and corporate donations will get you to $150 billion dollars to put a single 3,000 tonne telescope into space?

Amateur astronomers aren't building the James Webb. A cube sat with some optics onboard might not be crazy expensive and will outperform any backyard scope.


Again, no.  No even close

You're not going to be able to fit anything more than a 6-7cm telescope on a cubesat, and even that it's going to be constrained by length.  (10 cm wide, but you need space for satellite bits)   Backyard rigs with 25cm mirrors are common, and for the serious folks you'll see 40+.  And for what a 3U cubesat costs to build, launch and control?   You're talking dozens if not hundreds of 40+cm ground based scopes.

Resolution is only part of what makes a telescope work- you also need light gathering power, and that goes as the square of the size of the optics.  Those backyard scopes are 20x better than the cubesat, and with modern adaptive optic hardware and image processing software resolution isn't anywhere near as bad for the ground based stuff as you think.
 
2020-08-09 9:24:56 AM  

maxheck: There are quite a few countries who have this capability right now, and unlike the major powers they don't depend on LEO for their military capability very much.


It could get strange....

Many of these countries have bad infrastructure.  If Elon is serious about bringing internet to everyone then that means everyone, even enemy states along with the entirety of their populations. It's going to be a boon to them internally and not just externally.
They do depend on things like gps (and Chinese/Russian counterparts). They depend on their own spy satellites, or units rented from partner states. They certainly depend on weapons imports, if not food and fuel and other things.

If you destroy low earth orbit then you're hurting yourself.   You risk making people on all sides very angry even if you don't use space.  There are few truly independent warlords that could get away with that as anything but a last ditch effort.
Hence I think if it like the railroads.  You can't depend on weapons from the Kaiser while ripping up the connection to him. Better to try and attack individual trains in less destructive ways.

/Noting thar access to the rail lines usually requires an easily targeted launch complex.
/If you heave sand with a suborbital truck based rocket then it probably won't stay up long.
 
2020-08-09 10:22:55 AM  
Sounds like a bunch of people with broadband access whining about being inconvenienced.
 
2020-08-09 10:53:52 AM  
Remember the Iridium satellites? Now those were bright enough to be able to properly ruin some astronomy.
 
2020-08-09 3:07:31 PM  

StatelyGreekAutomaton: Remember the Iridium satellites? Now those were bright enough to be able to properly ruin some astronomy.


Original Iridium Constellation, or the new one (that SpaceX just put into orbit a few years ago)?
 
2020-08-09 4:13:24 PM  

LordJiro: What, letting a billionaire do whatever stupid idea he pays his engineers to come up with, with no oversight, might have negative consequences? Who saw that coming?

Next you'll be telling me that a guy who bought his way into every 'success' he's ever had ISN'T some kind of bootstrappy genius, or that the fact that his businesses have taken billions upon billions of dollars in government handouts DOESN'T make him look like a massive, out-of-touch hypocrite when he rails against 'socialism'.


the74million.orgView Full Size
The child coffin would have worked!!
 
2020-08-09 4:16:44 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Sorry to the guys here, but Elon still won't let you suck his dick.


pbs.twimg.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 34 of 84 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.