Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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