Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Adeldor t1_jahsf9s wrote

Reply to comment by FlingingGoronGonads in Satellite Constellations Are an Existential Threat for Astronomy by ChieftainMcLeland

You speak of misinformation, then misrepresent what I wrote with this:

> You are attempting to create an impression that there is no problem, and that everything has been or will be mitigated. [emphasis added]

In fact I wrote:

> There will be effects, but they are in general minor, or there are mitigating actions being taken now ... [emphasis added]

I neither wrote nor implied "no problem" and "everything has been or will be mitigated." Those are your words. Further, I provide the links for everyone to read the full releases in context, in an explicit attempt to avoid the very sin you seem to imply I'm committing.

Regardless, constellations are here now. Their worth has been proven, Starlink at least and professional observatories are working together to share the sky, and astronomy is not facing an existential threat, per that click-bait headline.

12

FlingingGoronGonads t1_jahtzyv wrote

I'll leave it to the alert reader to actually read the quotes we both provided. The only thing I will say to you about your "in general minor" harms that have no potential for mitigation (and I have provided a source for that statement already):

If observatories are literally unable to carry out part or all the mission objectives for which they are designed (like searching for Atira-type asteroids, which must be searched for at twilight because they orbit the Sun closer than Earth does), you have an interesting definition of the word "minor".

EDITED TO ADD: This comment has been up for hours and stands at a mere minus-2. I'm disappointed in you Musk worshippers, you're off your game here. I suppose I could keep fielding clueless anti-science comments like dern_the_hermit's below all day, but I'm done with this thread. For people that actually want to understand science and the problems that satellite swarms present, please remember that observatories and photometers are not just taking one-off snapshots - they're often taking data over a certain period of time to build up a light curve (a graph of change in brightness versus time), to give just one example. Tearing out gaps in a curve means loss of data that can be irretrievable, especially when an object is doing something unexpected. You can't mathematically reconstruct something that is non-repeatable!

−3

dern_the_hermit t1_jaj4p4r wrote

It's just bonkers to suggest observatories can't observe because a portion of some pictures is lost.

5

FlingingGoronGonads t1_jaj6mwh wrote

What happens when the actual object you're trying to observe is blotted out with an adjacent satellite streak? Vera Rubin will be taking short exposures - lots of them. Wide-field surveys need the sky to be open because, you know, they're looking for unknown sources, or need to see if known sources are doing unexpected things. Why is that difficult to understand?

−3

dern_the_hermit t1_jaj8btq wrote

> What happens when the actual object you're trying to observe is blotted out with an adjacent satellite streak

Take another picture. Pictures are cheap.

6

FlingingGoronGonads t1_jaj8v7t wrote

Sure, chuckles, loss of data is no big deal. Especially when you know ahead of time that the transient object/behaviour you're looking for means that the light source has no guarantee of being at the same brightness or position next exposure.

Musk fanatics are forever betraying their ignorance of science. Bye-bye, troll.

2

dern_the_hermit t1_jaj9367 wrote

Insults are completely inappropriate.

> loss of data is no big deal

It's not necessarily an existential threat, is the point. Let's stayed focused and on-topic here.

5