If only there were regulations for this sort of thing...
Space
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
π Science
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !curiosityrover@lemmy.world
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !esa@feddit.nl
- !nasa@lemmy.world
- !perseverancerover@lemmy.world
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !space@beehaw.org
- !space@lemmy.world
π Engineering
π Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
Wait until they start to orbit in formations representing company logos and serving us advertisements from spaceβ¦
I said this once
I said this twice
I said this thrice
I said this everytime starlink was discussed
Maybe now they will listen
Maybe now they will care
I started doing amateur astrophotography last year with a camera, lens and startracker.
The way it works is you take dozens or hundreds of photos of the same thing, then combine them into one final image, a process called "stacking".
To gather faint light, each photo is a long exposure gathering light for 30 - 120 seconds.
I have therefore taken over 20.000 long exposure shots of the night sky, pointing at different things, using wider and narrower lenses and NOT ONE SINGLE CLICK came without a Starlink streaking across the frame.
I'm a nobody using my phone to take the occasional image stack using Google's "night sight" mode on my Pixel 7 Pro. Out of the 30 or so pictures I've taken, one has a Starlink Trail.
What focal length do you normally shoot at? My rig is at 610mm and I get satellite trails mostly around dusk/dawn, but they all get rejected out during stacking
12/35mm for wide / nightscape shots, 135mm for regular wide field and 500mm for deep sky-ish stuff.
My sensor is APS-C, so the "effective" focal length is 1.5x the above lens values
Yeah, sadly this has become normal. The polution rate has reached ~100%. And sure, you already artificially build the final image anyways, but with Starlink, this has become a necessity. You can no longer take any individual shots, as they're all just Starlink streaks.
Thatβs fucking crazy, especially to think this wasnβt even a problem (on the same scale) more than 5 years ago.
What other objects interfered? The ISS i assume.
The ISS is visible from any single point you're standing on for up to about a minute when passing directly overhead and then the next orbit isn't close enough for you to see.
Some comm and weather sats here and there but really nothing crazy. It was even fun to have individual shots with a streak on it cause it was a relatively rare occasion.
Now there's just no hiding from it. Yes, the process of stacking images averages out the streaks in the final image, but for the average person with a wide lens taking a milky way shot during summer camping it's basically impossible to not have like 5 streaks on it.
That's actually incredibly sad. Damn.
Damn :(
Sadly I blame everyone but starlink. It provides internet to rural areas that otherwise donβt have any viable high speed internet. Feds and states should have done anything to make sure these areas were being served. They werenβt and as a result $120/mo internet is reasonable.
Rural UK here. Tiny country in comparison to the US. Our village has no mobile signal. Our landline internet maxes out at 1mbit up and 10mbit down. We are 3miles from a town with 15k people. Why is there no infrastructure? Iβm completely dependent on Starlink.
You speak about the US but it fucked the sky up for the entire planet, for all of us.
They never mentioned the US. Starlink serves the entire globe. Right above your comment is someone in the UK that uses Starlink.
Fucked up the sky for all of us? Who is "all of us"? Most of "us" live in mega cities with so much light pollution it blots out the night sky. Everyone in these horrid concrete jungles has high speed internet and absolutely no connection to the stars. Many of these people have never even seen the stars.
The ones living outside of these cities are the minority, and now they have internet. An internet they have been promised to the tune of countless billions for a very long time. They see the stars every night. Starlink has not impacted their connection with the stars at all.
So I am genuinely curious. Who, exactly, is the "us" you refer to?
And why are you not rallying against the light pollution that has denied billions access to the stars for at least generations?
That's the main issue I see here, too. If you can provide this without the side effect, per-country, sure. Go ahead. Cool service.
This is such a shitty take.
He's kinda right though...
Remember when the US govt. provided incentives for major ISPs to upgrade\expand their service and they just kinda pocketed the money and did nothing? Imagine if they didn't. We may not have had a need for starlink.
Imagine 7.700.000.000 people not living in the US
Starlink has customers in 99 countries as of March. It's a global service.
well maybe your right, maybe slowing down research and impeding the scientific progress of the human race is a small price to pay for getting Grandma in Bumfuck, Montana onto Facebook, and maybe these so called scientists should stop poking around the universe anyway, right ?
Isn't Starlink a major player in getting high speed Internet to developing nations? I'm as mad as you about ruining the sky, but it's not just Grandma it's also entire villages in the global south.
Like light pollution wasn't bad enough now literally satellites are fucking it up for us. How depressing.
Blow that piece of junk OUT OF THE SKY!
Where better to base your operation if your business mode is lawlessness. ?