Hacker News Reader

> I'm not an astronomer but I'm not convinced that that's the case.

I'm not entirely certain what the balance is here. I don't think my post made it clear that I'm not certain how big the effect would be, only that there is a tradeoff here which is hard to quantify.

I do know there is a lot of significant astronomy done by space telescope and that the importance of space astronomy is only growing.

Seems to me the answer is that those who benefit from the new satellite constellations (SpaceX, etc) should finance additional investment in astronomy to mitigate the effects.

What about amateur astronomy? Are we now saying that only those with the means to afford space telescopes or expensive software can participate?

If SpaceX works out, we'll probably see a lot more telescopes in space. Wouldn't be that expensive at that point for, say, a school class to launch a telescope cubesat.

I'd trade amateur ground astronomy for that.

I'm not entirely sure how you think looking at an image on a computer screen compensates for the experience of doing observations with your own eyes.

There are plenty of good pictures on wikipedia already, do looking at those compare to going out on a clear night and looking at the stars yourself?

A LEO satellite constellation will absolutely not prevent you from looking into the night sky with a telescope and seeing stars.

The dead of night will be fine. But during (astronomical) twilight, the time when you are most likely awake and looking up, it will have ugly extra dots.

What makes a dot ugly?

Also I'm sorry but I really, really don't care about a hobby if it gets in the way of the progress of the entire human race.

Imagine if a painter in Greece in some century BC convinced his fellow Grecians that building a harbor in the cove by their town was a bad idea because it ruined his paintings of the cove. How was he supposed to look at the marine life if you stuck wood and industry in the water???

This. Every change has some negative effect. The question is whether the net effect is positive or negative.

"Seeing a star" is a low bar to pass, especially if you get a telescope to help you.

Are you an amateur astronomer or just trying to be the devil's advocate?

I'd be curious to know what the impact is on impactful amateur astronomy (as opposed to backyard hobbyists who are just engaged for personal pleasure). I know some amateurs use images created by public telescopes, I'm not sure how much meaningful work is done by amateurs using backyard equipment anymore.

Not being dismissive, genuinely curious.

In recent news, the only confirmed interstellar comet in our solar system was found by a dude who worked at an observatory (not as an astronomer) and decided to build own telescope for fun in his spare time. It's one of only two known interstellar visitors we've had, and because he found it early enough the pros were able to make very detailed observations.

A decent number of asteroids and comets are still found by backyard astronomers.

Variable star observing is actually a place where amateurs really help, since it's about observation time, and not necessarily some hugely powerful telescope. And the more powerful a telescope is, the more people want to use it to point at all sorts of things, which makes it kind of expensive to use those telescopes for variable star observations which take a lot of time.

"Since professional astronomers do not have the time or the resources to monitor every variable star, astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can make genuine contributions to scientific research." [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Variab...

And the Betelgeuse deathwatch!

> I do know there is a lot of significant astronomy done by space telescope and that the importance of space astronomy is only growing.

Former astronomer here. I would argue that the importance of space astronomy is actually decreasing. Satellite telescopes are most important at wavelengths that the Earth's atmosphere absorbs like IR, UV, and X-ray. At visible wavelengths satellite telescopes have been much less important over the past couple of decades due to the development of adaptive optics.

The main reason to put a visible wavelength telescope in space is that you avoid the smearing out of the source by the atmosphere. Adaptive optics solves this problem by correcting for the distortions induced by the atmosphere and bringing images to resolutions that are comparable to (though still not quite as good as) what you can achieve in space.

Since space telescopes no longer have the advantage of much greater resolution, there's much less of a compelling reason to use them for most research problems. (Some questions, of course, can only be tackled by using the highest resolution available.) On every other dimension space-based telescopes are inferior to ground-based telescopes. They are more expensive by many orders of magnitude, much, much smaller, and they cannot be changed once they're up (at least not easily). By contrast a ground based observatory can get substantially better over the course of a year by installing better detectors.

Adaptive optics have zero issues if you’re looking to make a cool picture, but they do introduce bias which is an issue for scientific instruments. That’s largely offset by more and larger telescopes for the same price, but it is very much a tradeoff based in launch costs which are falling.

IMO, over the next 30 years space based telescopes are going to play an ever larger role.

Can adaptive optics be applied to filter out objects like Starlink satellites?

You can filter them out computationally without adaptive optics with enough frames captured.

Modern astronomy works at the edges of whats possible, a single frame might take hours. Needing multiple frames would mean multiple days per observation. It would mean no longer seeing faint and distant objects, limiting us to younger, closer and frankly far more boring objects. It would make observing variability impossible for certain timescales.

You need old distant objects for cosmology, observing the structure if the universe, big bang and stuff. You need variability for finding exoplanets, measuring distance and observing transitions such as supernovae.

Oh, and then a huge part is taking spectra, which means bouncing the light directly off a grating. Filtering transients is hard to impossible there. You need spectra for relative motion, magnetic fields, composition of matter and radiation and of course temperature.

Needing such filters would set astronomy back a few decades

No, they are too bright and will saturate the detector with even very short exposures. Best you can do is just discard the affected area, at worst you have to discard several exposures because the saturation effected the readout electronics.

Hey you're back! I asked you previously "That might work for imaging, but what's your fix for spectroscopy?" here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21577081

You replied "Optical, RF, or Xray?"

Then I said, "Let's start with optical." but then you disappeared!

So, what's your solution for long-slit optical spectroscopy?

Hey! I'm still waiting to hear back from the astronomer I paid to do the research. I still intend to report back with their DOI from the resulting paper. I recognize when I've exceeded my domain knowledge and need an expert.

To be clear, I think we're well in the realm of academic discussion; no one is stopping any global constellation due to astronomy concerns. As I've said many times in this thread and elsewhere, I think it's a growth opportunity for the astronomy community to move towards space based observation platforms, and with the plummeting cost of lift (ie SpaceX Falcon and Starship) I don't think that's an unreasonable position to hold.

Don't think so. Adaptive optics works by changing the physical shape of the mirror. If you measure the atmosphere continuously and bend the mirror the right way, you can remove atmospheric distortion from the image. If anything, AO just gets you sharper images of the starlink satellites (or significantly worse ones if a satellite flies in front of the guidestar that you're using as a reference point to measure atmospheric distortions).

Arecibo and VLA aren't affected by starlink at all. Those are radio telescopes. They don't even need to wait until nighttime to observe. It's only an optical/ir problem.

Starlink uses radio to communicate with the ground. A common complaint from radio astronomers is new radio satellite operators promising to not interfere with radio astronomy and then making no effort to follow through in that promise.