186
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] 1984@lemmy.today 69 points 1 year ago

Depressing actually. Future generations will look up and see shitty satellites.

[-] dmention7@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

That seems more than a tad hyperbolic. My wife and I enjoy sitting in our backyard next to the fire and stargazing every now and again. We'll catch maybe a dozen satellites on a good night, during the couple hours post-sunset when you can actually catch the sunlight glinting off them. By about 2 hours after sunset, the number of objects that are both high enough to still reflect sunlight and large enough to see is pretty tiny.

I see vastly more planes with blinking lights and bright landing lights than I do satellites, and this has been the case for decades, but somehow that's not a threat to our enjoyment of the night sky?

[-] batmangrundies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Every light adds to light pollution though and makes it more difficult for earth-based astronomy. And that's excluding events where satilites pass through observations.

Extremely annoying, but inevitable I guess.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Hopefully they will have de-orbited by then and we would have found a better solution. But then we may not have too many generations left anyway.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

The Economist had an article a few months ago talking about how modern satellite fleets were so bright, they were threatening to make earth based astronomy impossible. Its title: "Goodbye, darkness, my old friend".

[-] venusenvy47@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

They probably threaten some space telescopes, too. The Starlink satellites are a little higher than Hubble. I would imagine they might take up a decent amount of field of view to Hubble, by being closer.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They are at almost the same altitude, 540 km vs 550 km. There is probably almost never a starlink sat in view for the Hubble, they would need top be right on to of each other, the satellite would pass by at a very high speed and you wouldn't see another for days.

[-] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The satellite's antenna array is huge. No wonder it's a lot brighter when seen next to a starlink satellite, which looks like a mere speck in comparison.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 5 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

seen next to a starlink sattelite

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] abcd@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago

Imagine someone putting an array of intentionally reflective mini satellites into orbit and then relocate them into mini B/W images just for fun. Or more realistically for advertisement purposes…

The fact that there are multiple persons with the capability to do this is crazy.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

We've kinda done that before, the first communications satellites were just giant reflectors, made to be as bright as possible.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

The Sun: Can't outshine me bitches!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Don't tempt Elon.

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
186 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

59419 readers
2928 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS