Telescopes searching for brief flashes like supernovae and asteroids have to contend with a rising number of glints from satellites. These glints can last for a fraction of a second, but they're bright enough to be recorded as a starlike object in the field of view of a survey like the Vera Rubin Observatory. In a new study, astronomers identified tens of thousands of these glints captured by a survey telescope, and there could be 80,000/hour happening across the sky.
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
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?
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.
"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"
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"
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.
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
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?
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.
deleted by creator
Many astronomers suggested exactly that, they were against the approval of starlink.
Starlink has been doing that for 3 years now. There are limits to how nonreflective they can get the satellites.
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.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The satellite constellations are in LEO. Kessler syndrome is literally not possible at that altitude.
deleted by creator
but have you considered that this under-regulated shlock allows for
command and control in warzones across the worldshitty internet service in "remote areas"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.
deleted by creator
Yo I have this amazing bridge I'm selling, and you seem like a wise investor.
deleted by creator