SpaceX's Starlink Satellites Accused of 'Photo-Bombing' Shots of Comet Neowise (livescience.com) 112
"Comet Neowise has been the brightest and most visible space snowball in a generation, but it's also the first naked-eye comet to visit us in the new era of satellite mega-constellations like SpaceX's Starlink," writes CNET.
"In just the latest episode of Starlink 'trains' irritating astronomers, a number of images have been circulating of the satellites photo-bombing Comet Neowise glamour shots..."
Live Science explains: Visible just above the horizon right now, the comet appears faint and small to the naked eye, but can be seen clearly through cameras with long, telephoto lenses. Usually, when photographers capture objects like this in the night sky they use long exposure times, leaving the camera aperture open to collect light over the course of several seconds. But now comet-chasers report that a new fleet of SpaceX's Starlink satellites is leaving bright smears across their NEOWISE snaps, as the shiny orbiters streak through their frames during long exposures.
"In just the latest episode of Starlink 'trains' irritating astronomers, a number of images have been circulating of the satellites photo-bombing Comet Neowise glamour shots..."
Live Science explains: Visible just above the horizon right now, the comet appears faint and small to the naked eye, but can be seen clearly through cameras with long, telephoto lenses. Usually, when photographers capture objects like this in the night sky they use long exposure times, leaving the camera aperture open to collect light over the course of several seconds. But now comet-chasers report that a new fleet of SpaceX's Starlink satellites is leaving bright smears across their NEOWISE snaps, as the shiny orbiters streak through their frames during long exposures.
Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
But if they waited a few minutes until the satellites were hidden they wouldn't be able to declare themselves victims and wouldn't be able to get media coverage.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not just "a few minutes." Depending on the right ascension of what you're trying to photograph, it can be most of the night.
While each individual satellite obstructs the comet (or any point in the sky you wish to photograph) for just a few minutes (actually probably a few seconds), you have to remember that there are tens of thousands of satellites planned. So the time a single satellite is in the right (wrong) location isn't that important. The figure you want is how long any one of those satellites could be lit by the sun while the observer is in darkness.
Starlink satellites [wikipedia.org] orbit between 335-1325 km, with a common average stated as 550 km. Range of visibility is a simple line of sight calculation [wikipedia.org]. Although we'll use the angle rather than a distance like in the diagram.
If the sun as at the left, the diagram represents the furthest a satellite can be on the dark side of the Earth, and still be lit by sunlight.
Double it since the furthest angle at which an observer on the dark side can see this satellite barely lit by sunlight is symmetric (just flip the triangle around the hypotenuse). Double it again since it happens at sunrise and at sunset. So:
This doesn't mean all of the sky is obscured for that long. These times are how long *some* of the sky is obscured by satellites. If you use nautical or astronomical twilight [weather.gov] (12 and 18 degrees after sunset / before sunrise respectively), subtract 24 degrees and 1h 36m from these figures (nautical twilight), or 36 degrees and 2h 24 min (astronomical twilight).
Basically, with a full Starlink satellite constellation in orbit, any photo of anywhere in the sky you take at sunset can have Starlink satellite streaks in them. A North-South line will sweep from East to West, eventually crossing the Western horizon ("Starlink sunset"). Photos of anything to the west of this line can suffer from sunlight flaring off of Starlink satellites. "Starlink sunset" will occur at 2h 23m after sunset (335km altitude), 3h 2m after sunset (550 km altitude), or 4h 30m after sunset (1325 km altitude).
The same thing will happen in reverse before sunrise. A line will sweep from east to west starting from 2h 23m to 4h 30m before sunrise. Any photos taken to the east of this line can suffer from sunlight flaring off of Starlink satellites.
So we're not talking about just having to wait a few minutes to be clear of the flares. We're talking most of the night.
Re:Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:4)
This is similar to the trick of photographing down the length of a city street with a long lens to make the signage on the street look overcrowded and ugly. Pictures can lie as easily as words.
Re: (Score:1)
This is similar to the trick of photographing down the length of a city street with a long lens to make the signage on the street look overcrowded and ugly.
Not really. The photograph was accidental: the photographer was not trying to capture a picture of the satellites he was trying to photograph the comet. Also, this could have been largely avoided if Mr Musk had bothered to cover his satellites with an anti-reflective coating.
Re: Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:3)
The next generation is already launching with vanta black.
Wait you want him to go up there and paint all the existing ones with spray paint too?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is literally NOTHING like pollution in the oceans. A far better analogy is an airplane crossing the sky while you want to take a picture. I don't hear people freaking out about that.
Re: Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:2, Troll)
You, sir, are an idiot and a liar. It was a composite of 19+ long exposure shots with all other artifacts except Starlink digitally removed. Had those same processes been used on a single shot you would have only seen the night sky and the comet.
Re:Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not quite true. You can use processing to remove satellite streaks but it requires extra work to do so.
But he already did all that work.
The final image is a composite of hundreds of thousands of images, where only one out of those hundreds of thousands shows the satellite in it, and the rest do not.
The first step is searching for images with a significant change from the previous and next images to single them out.
This is where the branch happens.
Normally those selected images are discarded.
But this person selected them to discard all the rest.
Except this process also is used to remove other artifacts like a
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite true. You can use processing to remove satellite streaks but it requires extra work to do so. The most likely explanation is that he just processed the images regularly and ended up with the satellite streaks that he then had to put in extra work to remove.
That is not accurate, in amateur astrophotography each final shot is a result of stacking multiple exposures to get some decent SNR (the sky brightness limits each individual exposure), so you always use stacking software, with the removal of satellites being just a tickbox: instead of using average sample you use any of various methods that drop extreme samples from the stack. In fact, it is not an extra tick, as that is the method we normally use anyway - meteors are not uncommon in shots (as well as sate
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds awfully like you and the GP believe that photos are only legitimate if no intentional artistic effects are used?
What is art but creating your own version of the world you see, with the intent of convincing other people to prefer your version?
Re: (Score:2)
No, he wasn't trying to get a shocking looking photo. He says he got it without trying. What he is trying to create is awareness of the growing amount of trash and pollution by mankind that has gone beyond the atmosphere and into orbit. Ground-based astronomy is important to get people interested in astronomy and for them to become active. To say we're not losing something of value here is ignorant.
But to be honest, I don't see this ever changing. Mankind has been exploiting about everything imaginable, and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a lot of doubt that StarLink will ever be of significant value to those living in cities. The reason is signal congestion. Too many signals in too small an area. Where there are dense populations cell networks, and even 5g, are better answers. (5g is better because the smaller cell size allows more signals / unit area|volume.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One can do astronomy in cities, only not as well as one likes, but this is true for any place on Earth. You can certainly see the Moon and some of the planets with only your bare eyes. Binoculars and a small telescope are then the next step. It's all astronomy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is. What makes you think it wouldn't be?
I don't know right now if one can see the Starlink satellites with the naked eye, I suppose one can, but I have seen many other satellites with the naked eye in cities. That is not in the city centres with all the heavy street lights and traffic, but the suburban areas. When you then do time lapse and long exposure photography can you get a lot of satellites.
But if you think this is all just peanuts then simply wait until all 42,000 Starlink satellites are in
Re: Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:2)
Yes, it is. What makes you think it wouldn't be?
Um. The fact that if the only thing you can see is the moon, a satellite isn't going to have any impact on your ability to continue viewing it?
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said above, the moment you start doing exposure photography will it get really annoying. You first need to get an opening in the clouds, you then have to combat light pollution and now this.
Re: Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:2)
Oh darn. I'm sorry it's getting harder for you to take pretty pictures. I'll send you some nice ones over my new Starlink internet connection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean solely? No. However from my time at ESA did I learn about the environmental damages caused by launches and reentries, which are massive, as well as the consequences of space debris, the amount of effort that goes into protecting spacecrafts from it, and little to no efforts going into reducing it because space is a law-free zone. And we've done this so many times before, with rivers, forests, oceans and the air only to learn that it was a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every rocket launch tears a hole into the ozone layer
No, unlike Arianespace or ULA, SpaceX doesn't actually use chlorinated solid boosters. Furthermore, if you hate the monthly or bi-weekly kerosene-powered SpaceX launch, just wait until you find out about the flight rates of jetliners! That will make you properly mad about atmospheric pollution.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
SpaceX doesn't actually use chlorinated solid boosters. ...
You are a perfect example of what I was referring to. You say they don't use ammonium perchlorate, and you probably think it is the one chemical that is known to destroy the ozone layer. This is crazier than believing one shouldn't dump diesel into a river, but it's ok to do it with an unknown substance. It's another way of saying, "What could possibly go wrong?!"
The damage done by SpaceX's kerosine-based boosters is simply not fully understood, because rocket engines are designed for maximum lift, and for
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a "perfect example" of what, a rocket, or an ozone hole, or Internet access? Or what exactly were you referring to?
We have evidence that solid propellants rapidly cause ozone depletion in the vehicle's trail even in individual flights. We don't have such evidence for kerosene-powered vehicles, even at regular flights, and if we do, please point me to it. In any case, Russians have been launching kerosene-powered LVs at triple the rate of SpaceX flight for many, many years. Do you have any evidence of th
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a "perfect example" of what ...
Are you dyslexic? I'm talking of people who keep repeating old mistakes.
I'm say we're doing it again and your response is the ozone layer is growing.
It took a lot of effort to get the industry to stop and to turn around. So now we're doing it again and you are still only at the stage of asking "What's happening?"
You need to get your head checked if this is really something that interests you. Studies have been made. I won't point you to them. When you do have a bit of intelligence left in you then you shoul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You need to get your head checked if this is really something that interests you
BTW, no, I don't need to, because it doesn't really interest me - this is an issue of minimal importance for example compared to recent rogue CFC emissions in the developing world. I would really need to get my head checked if I thought that two dozen LVs per year are anything but an insignificant blip on the background of millions of flights *plus* industrial CFC emissions when it comes to atmospheric pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, no, I don't need to, because it doesn't really interest me
Dumb and dense, but still you want to argue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You are dumb and dense either way.
Re: (Score:2)
I could never be a salesman. I don't know how I could sell someone a mobile phone when I know they need a bike more and have little money.
You really *shouldn't* be a salesman, then. [jstor.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Selling mobile phones to fishermen does not increase the yield of the catch or the number of fish in the sea. It increases the production and sales of mobile phones and services. Fish consumers are now paying for the fishermen's use of mobile phones. It took money from the consumers and channelled it through the fishermen to the producers of mobile phones and providers of mobile services. The wealth shifts from the poor to the rich, where the poor now have to spend more on food and have less for things such
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you are. I'm just giving you something for the money you've spend using the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not. You're the one believing that it's beneficial to the wealthy, and you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rotting fish and wasted labor, on the other hand, is beneficial to no one.
You're only imagining it. Mobile phones don't stop fish from rotting, ice does.
Of course can you argue that the shift in wealth caused by the mobiles phones now allows the wealthier fishermen to buy better boats and nets so that they can try to catch more fish. But you could have just sold them the better boats and nets in the first place instead of the mobile phones. Only this does not produce more fish in the sea, but it leads to over-fishing. The catches become smaller, some fishermen can no longer susta
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile phones don't stop fish from rotting, ice does.
Apparently the phrase "waste, averaging 5-8 percent of daily catch before mobile phones, was completely eliminated" in the linked paper contained words that were too big for you. Oh, well.
the shift in wealth caused by the mobiles phones now allows the wealthier fishermen to buy better boats
Ah, so it made the poor fishermen wealthier. Well, that goes against your previous claim that the use of modern communication tools took money from them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you still only don't grasp it. Nor is 5%-8% anything significant and bad trades, which there will be more now, do waste food, too. It only didn't get captured in the study nor was the increase of wealth for the mobile industry captured. It portraits the use of mobiles as positive by leaving out negatives.
In short: You give me money, I give you a mobile, you work harder, you take more money from others, we both win.
Re: (Score:2)
and bad trades, which there will be more now, do waste food, too
So your argument is that the authors made up their numbers. Projecting much?
nor was the increase of wealth for the mobile industry captured
Anyone with 101 level understanding of economics understands that economic transactions are not zero-sum. There's no need for such a paper to repeat all basic notions starting from the alphabet, so why would they mention that when it's not an article on the mobile industry?
It portraits the use of mobiles as positive by leaving out negatives.
The article clearly mentions average increase of fishermen's daily income by ~180 Rs against average monthly phone operation costs of ~500 Rs and an average initi
Re: (Score:2)
So no, nobody is "leaving out negatives". Oh, but please, do keep telling us that earning extra $700 per year is insignificant for poor Indians.
Where are the extra $700 coming from? Who paid the fishermen the extra money? Where did those who paid the fishermen get the money from?
Re: Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:2)
They got it from not having to go fishing themselves and focusing on something where they could be more productive.
Do you seriously not understand how markets work? Do you have no concept of how a system could ever be anything other than a zero-sum game?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have no concept of how a system could ever be anything other than a zero-sum game?
Oh, I do, but do you get that what you are having is an illusion? No. So I'll repeat it again for you...
You give me money, I give you a mobile phone, you now work harder, you sell more fish and we both win.
Where does the extra money come from? It didn't grow on a tree, did it? Was it stuck in a mattress somewhere? Was it inflation? Did the poor print their own money? Did they sell their kids? ...
When you cannot explain where the extra money is coming from then you are missing a part of the system and you th
Re: Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:2)
When you cannot explain where the extra money is coming from then you are missing a part of the system and you therefore have no understanding of economics.
And when I already told you where it's coming from I am not missing anything, and you are just grasping at straws to try and defend your silly assertions. As far as I can tell you don't seem to understand that the economic improvements are not zero-sum.
Re: (Score:2)
And when I already told you where ...
So you mean the fish consumers are now paying the extra $700? Do you remember what my answer to this was? Perhaps you didn't read it. My answer was that when you force the consumers to pay more for food then they have less for clothing, health care, hygiene, and so on, because little has changed for the consumers apart from fish getting more expensive. It remains a redistribution of wealth.
As the saying goes, give a man a fish and they have food for a day. Teach a man how to fish and they have food for life
Re: (Score:2)
Where does the extra money come from? It didn't grow on a tree, did it? Was it stuck in a mattress somewhere? Was it inflation? Did the poor print their own money? Did they sell their kids? ...
It's extra transactions, not extra money. You don't need "extra money" just to perform an extra transaction.
And when you cannot see the full economic system as a whole, then you are doomed to move wealth only from one end to the other
It *never* worked that way. Division of labour in society existed even when there wasn't even any notion of economic science in the first place. Despite that people with different utilities of goods could still exchange them for mutual benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
My answer was that when you force the consumers to pay more for food then they have less for clothing, health care, hygiene, and so on, because little has changed for the consumers apart from fish getting more expensive.
Your answer is useless because it is refuted by observations of reality in the cited study:
...the change in average price received is negative and statistically significant (likely due in part to what is effectively an increase in supply of fish sold due to the reduction in waste). The price declined by .44 Rs/kg on average in the pooled treatment, or about 5 percent...
Re: (Score:2)
Your answer is useless because it is refuted by observations of reality in the cited study: ..the change in average price received is negative and statistically significant (likely due in part to what is effectively an increase in supply of fish sold due to the reduction in waste). The price declined by .44 Rs/kg on average in the pooled treatment, or about 5 percent...
I have asked you several times and you didn't give an answer, so I gave you one. You don't like it? The start giving answers when you're being asked.
So when then price dropped then how did they make the extra $700? Did they catch more fish?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Increased supply through avoided waste outweighed the price decrease.
Again, mobile phones don't stop fish from rotting, ice does.
Besides the fact that a claim of 0% waste is plain ludicrous, because there is always waste by fishermen as well as traders, but let's just go with it anyway just for the amusement.
Now say how the waste was avoided. Mobile phones don't this, but the people do and they did it, using ice, or coolers, or other means. So how did they do it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not my point. My point still is that they didn't need mobile phones to do any of this. One could have sold them better boats, more nets, bigger warehouses, more ice, better coolers, and so on. But what they did was to sell them mobile phones.
You keep thinking this was somehow the best you could do. All you really know is to sit behind a screen and play with a mobile. You love mobiles, don't you? And you love the idea that the whole world should have them and that mobiles make everything better, right
Re: (Score:2)
Here some more facts for you to think about:
- Indian is not a third world country. They are a nation with over a billion people and have their own mobile phone production.
- Mobile phones do not work on the open sea. There are no cell towers in the ocean. Instead, Fishermen actually use VHF radios, ship id transponders, radar, gps and satellite phones.
- A new boat engine with lower fuel consumption lowers the overall cost of fuel and reduces CO2 emissions and is a both an economical and ecological better cho
Re: (Score:2)
One could have sold them better boats, more nets, bigger warehouses, more ice, better coolers
For an average price of $70? That's some very cheap boats, warehouses and coolers.
Re: (Score:2)
Indian is not a third world country
Wrong [wikipedia.org], although I have no idea why did you suddenly moved onto geopolitics here.
Mobile phones do not work on the open sea
Another straw man. Nobody claimed that fishermen used mobile phones on the open sea.
A new boat engine with lower fuel consumption lowers the overall cost of fuel and reduces CO2 emissions and is a both an economical and ecological better choice.
New boat engine with lower fuel consumption doesn't cost $70 like the average phone in the study did. And not wasting time with catching fish you can't sell *also* saves fuel. And finally, there's no reason to not do both if you can afford it. Maybe with $700 extra income from better business communication, the fisherman will finally be able to
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile phones do not work on the open sea. There are no cell towers in the ocean.
BTW, another quote from the article:
Since most of the largest cities are coastal, many base towers were placed close enough to the shore that service was available twenty to twenty-five kilometers out to sea, the distance within which most fishing is done.
...
... While mobile phone service was not explicitly planned to accommodate fishermen, the cities listed above are coastal, so with a service radius of about twenty-five kilometers for each mobile phone tower, service became available for much of the range in which sardine fishing occurs (ten to thirty kilometers from the shore).
So apparently no need for that anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Since most of the largest cities are coastal, many base towers were placed close enough to the shore that service was available twenty to twenty-five kilometers out to sea, the distance within which most fishing is done.
They don't have complete coverage, especially further away from the large cities. Nor is it accurate since it ignores the curvature of the Earth and wave heights. This is why to this day fishermen still rely on VHF radios and satellite phones.
Just as one can teach a man to fish and can one teach them how to trade. Mobile phones had nothing to do with it. It's just a fairy tale for the mobile phone generation and all you have is a study, which you keep holding onto.
No matter how much you hate it they still c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your only response to an accusation of malice is to cite the accused persons testimony?
Yes, of course. What grounds do you have to take the accusation serious? Or wait, let me guess ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe these satellites need to be visible in every picture taken, or else it's malice?
Re: (Score:3)
There is actually a pretty short window of time, typically just before sunrise and just after sunset when the Star Link stats will problematically reflect the sun.
That may be true but there are also certain objects which are typically also only viewable just before sunrise and just after sunset like Mercury, Venus and comets. Plus, in higher latitudes in the summer you are never that far from sunset or sunrise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is actually a pretty short window of time, typically just before sunrise and just after sunset when the Star Link stats will problematically reflect the sun.
Funny that's usually the time window when astronomers are actually able to do measurement on comet tails.
Second, this photographer was using a pretty wide angle lens
Yeah who would look into space doing wide angle for science [sdss.org], it's clearly just an astronomy thing.
It's pretty easy to composite these kinds of sat trails out of pictures.
No it's not. It's quite difficult and even when you do it they leave noise trails. Frames with these kinds of interference are often rejected wholesale if possible both when just taking pretty pictures and when doing actual science so it doesn't mess up the data.
I honestly kinda think the guy was trying to get a shocking looking photo.
Honestly I think you've never taken a photo of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Astronomy is not ruined. (Score:2)
Not to oppose what youre saying, but i think you missed what I considered to the the most important part of the comment.
We could liken this to everybodys right to observe and be part of nature. Yet in now developed nations most people can see mostly concrete. How is this any different? Aside from space being largely untouched until fecent decades, that and this is apparently "super-annoying"?
I dont think this is a black or white subject, but an interesting one to discuss...
Re: (Score:2)
Because earth based astronomers have always been able to build their telescope in some remote place to get away from whatever type of pollution they are needing to get away from - light, noise, earthquakes, radio fequency interference, etc.
With this there is no distance you can move. It covers the whole planet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Meaningful astronomy isn't done by photographs of the sky anymore, professor or not. It's done by radio-telescopes the size of small towns."
Radio telescopes are mot that good for observing comets.
Visualisation of Starlink (Score:5, Informative)
You can see the constellation here: https://www.heavens-above.com/... [heavens-above.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Why would anyone paint the squares red? To see them from the ground?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that's a very cool visualization.
I know they're small, but damn it looks like swarm that's constantly *just* avoiding a thousand collisions.
It must be a nightmare tracking all those orbits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have plans for over 30,000 satellites.
After they're all up there'll be so many of them you'll probably be able to step across them from one to another. You'll be able to walk around a low-Earth orbit.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The story I saw in the Spanish press a few days ago had some of those details: 21st of July, Tenerife, 200mm lens on full frame camera. As to how they know it's Starlink: isn't elimination a sufficient explanation? Can you name any other cluster of satellites big enough to leave that many streaks?
Re:How do they know it is Stalink? (Score:4, Informative)
The outrage is justified. Let's look at your dismissive comments as to why you're trying to gaslight:
- There is no information about the camera settings, location or time of capture.
Not at all relevant. For astronomy pictures there's a very narrow set of camera settings suitable. For actual science the options are even narrower. The time of capture for a comet is incredibly limited given the intensity of their trails is dependent on proximity to the sun meaning that there resulting images will always happen right around the time Starlink satellites are most lit up.
- The articles linked provide no information about the photographers beyond names associated with the twitter accounts
I guess the pictures are fake then? Not sure why you think it's relevant to know information about the people. Does that help you discredit them?
- There are no details about how the satellites were identified as Starlink ... at least until the next company starts flinging hotspots into space. Look here https://www.heavens-above.com/... [heavens-above.com] it may look like random noise until you select one of the constellations. When you do you'll realise Starlink satellites orbit in groups and will leave multiple streaks in your image.
Starlink are the only satellites in a constellation circling the globe which look like this. If you ever see trails like this you're pretty much guaranteed that it's Starlink
- Articles and posts like these will not have positive effects on readers.
Good. Neither does Starlink.
- For uncritical readers, uninformed outrage will be seeded.
For critical readers informed outrage will be seeded. You seem to have fallen into a 3rd group that you didn't identify: uninformed reader attempting to deliberately discredit and gaslight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing the amount of actual astronomy that is done just by pointing CCD into the sky. What one person sees as a picture someone else runs through a software analysis.
Your No True Scotsman fallacy (or just plain ignorance) shows.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what analysis you have. Someone's evening was ruined and your head being stuck in the sand doesn't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed ... (Score:3)
I went out to view the comet on July 17th and take pictures using a regular DSLR on a tripod (no sky tracking).
I took many 6 second exposures, and noticed at least two satellites showing up in some sequences.
Oh gee no we can't have that (Score:1)
But now comet-chasers report that a new fleet of SpaceX's Starlink satellites is leaving bright smears across their NEOWISE snaps, as the shiny orbiters streak through their frames during long exposures.
Comet chasers' inconvenience clearly trumps planet-wide communications. Right?
starlink orbit (Score:2)
Starlink orbit and locations are not secret .. you can find out the exact time the satellite will be there down to the millisecond.. first off, if you happen to be taking a wide field photo for astronomy .. then don't be an idiot just turn off the camera during the starlink transit. Second, if the satellites were dark it would be worse you may think you're witnessing a giant exoplanet eclipse or something. There are enough satellites in the sky already that you should be doing that anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
then don't be an idiot just turn off the camera during the starlink transit.
Maybe don't be an idiot and look up your non secret Starlink orbit, you may realise that it's not actually possible to do what you said in many locations on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Ban neighbor houses asap!
Re: (Score:2)