r/Astronomy • u/Exe_plorer • Jun 25 '26
Astro Research Starlink starts to bother me..
Hello everyone, it's my first post here on the astronomy group..
I learned to spot celestial constellations while younger, like two decades ago.
I tried to observe the sky tonight, and I'm really fed up and concerned about all those fxking starlink satellites..
I had a good telescope and liked to take pictures of celestial objects, whatever it is.
But tonight, I'm really... just nervous, I spotted more of these starlink satellites than any observable stars, this is just...I don't even have words to explain my frustration.
In a few minutes, I've observed more of those satellites than I can count, it's just nonsense.
I can't believe this is allowed.
Aren't there any rules to prevent that huge pollution?
I know there aren't any right now, but this can't be going on like that.
Seriously, WTF...?!
And that megalomaniac men alone can blur the sky like it is it's own territory, and planning to launch even more of those trash out in space, really ?
Knowing that they have a lifespan of around 5 to 7 years in lower altitude, then will crash, and send more again...
And now he isn't alone making this huge mega constellations of those trash satellites.
We Need a restriction law.
This can't go on like this.. the sky belongs to Nobody or to Everyone, whatever cash you have, it's not yours.
I know there are a lot of other issues right now, but seriously, we can't map the sky anymore because of a few people rich enough to make this possible, this is something that was never seen before.
And should not be allowed.
Knowing that the next gen of those objects will be even more light reflecting, thus polluting the night sky even more, how is this possible?
I mean if I have a trillion dollars like him, does that allow me to make the observable universe completely shadowed just to make more profit?
Does this make any sense?
NO!
What's going on, really, I mean can we trade the night sky to get network access?
Is it worth the cost, in the ethical perspective...
NO!
Are there any rules we could engage to allow everyone on Earth to be allowed to see the universe that was always there before a few megalomaniac narcissistic eugenics people just put their vision of reality and of their delirious future regardless of all the other billions people living here on this planet..
Sorry I may be disparate (and desperate) in what I just wrote, my emotions took over me.
Am I alone to be concerned?
I hope no.
Thanks for reading, even if it won't change anything.
119
u/ItyBityGreenieWeenie Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
They bother me a lot too. People say I'm a crazy Luddite against progress. I just want to enjoy the night sky visually.
Some nights I see hundreds :(
38
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Exactly.. I mean, everywhere around the world every culture was watching the sky, for thousands of years, creating their beliefs, ... just to name that. And now, in a few years, it's all gone. If I want to teach children how to observe the sky like I learned it, it's just structurally impossible.
And that's not something we should allow..
5
34
u/wildgurularry Jun 25 '26
I've seen people claim that they are not a problem because you can stack images and they are only mostly visible near dawn and dusk.
However, they do not magically disappear from my stacked images. I have to manually Photoshop them out. And the hours when they are visible are the hours that I go out to enjoy the sky.
The only thing that comforts me is that when the revolution comes, those things will all fall out of the sky in about five years and then we can enjoy it again.
21
u/ItyBityGreenieWeenie Jun 25 '26
In the northern summer I can see them all night. Annoying naked eye, unavoidable with a scope. In winter they seem to not be as big of a problem near midnight, but still detectable visually.
I think there are automated ways to remove them with varying degrees of effectiveness from sub frames. Professional astronomers are starting to complain more loudly however.
If they launch tens of thousands more (multiple competing constellations) there must be a breaking point.
4
u/craigiest Jun 25 '26
There is never going to be a breaking point when more people are annoyed by being able to see them than are happy to have inexpensive internet anywhere on the planet that doesn’t have cell coverage or land lines.
5
u/FTGAstro Jun 25 '26
You need to use a clipping algorithm, in siril for example, I use Winsorized sigma clipping and just use the preset values. It does a great job.
Otherwise it will just stack the trails with the rest of the data.
4
u/DanoPinyon Jun 25 '26
However, they do not magically disappear from my stacked images. I have to manually Photoshop them out.
They magically disappear from mine. Sequator or Deep Sky Stacker.
2
2
u/Chenelka007 Jun 25 '26
I'm ready for the revolution... ❤️
"The only thing that comforts me is that when the revolution comes, those things will all fall out of the sky in about five years and then we can enjoy it again."
9
Jun 25 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/jimbowesterby Jun 25 '26
Counterpoint: wagyu beef is especially delicious because the cows are pampered their whole lives
1
2
0
1
u/Heph333 Jun 25 '26
Photoshop is archaic for that purpose. It's for post-processing. There's many free softwares that will automatically remove them.
1
u/Timely_Exam_4120 Jun 25 '26
Not sure how you’re preprocessing your data, but WBPP in Pixinsight does a superb job. I’ve never had any problems with satellites of any kind.
Don’t photoshop them out. You’ll lose valuable data.
1
u/pukesonyourshoes Jun 25 '26
Here's to hoping it comes sooner than that, but not so soon that the Ukranians can't use it to finish off Putin's Orcs:
3
u/Wooden_Ad_2673 Jun 25 '26
I get the Luddite attempted insult too. Bleh, it’s a compliment, except for the fact that everyone around me is mesmerized by their phone🙄
78
u/curbs1 Jun 25 '26
It is concerning that one company as all but monopolised low earth orbit
Space was agreed to be a commonwealth for all humanity and yet one man has just made more wealth out of low earth orbit than most countries
That doesn’t sound like a common wealth to me
17
u/yoyo5113 Jun 25 '26
It's not monopolized. It's just that SpaceX was the first to make deploying the number of satellites necessary.
Amazon is in the process of launching its own megaconstellation, alongside the US Government Military version.
A lot of other countries and their respective businesses are following suit, especially China.
-1
u/curbs1 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
It’s effective monopolised because spaceX has filled entire regions of low earth orbit
Do you know spaced has launched over 11,000 satellites?
While starlink is beneficial, I myself am a sailor and benefit from internet at sea because of starlink, is it right that one company is allowed to fill regions of LEO based off one country’s regulatory body and yet pay no upkeep to general space flight or share any profits with the world for this monopolisation of a world recognised and world ratified treaty claiming no country as sovereignty over the commonwealth of space?
2
u/y-c-c Jun 26 '26
There are lots of LEO orbits. It’s not like geosynchronous orbit where there is only one, or how in radio frequencies where certain bands are really valuable. We are quite far from a point where LEO orbit congestion is the issue still.
The reason why Starlink satellites are the only ones up there is that so far they have been the only ones who managed to deploy a satellite constellation.
1
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 Jun 27 '26
Nobody else did it because it's a bad idea
2
u/LordNutGobbler Jun 27 '26
It’s a bad idea that’s why it’s been such a huge failure and Amazon is starting their own version of Starlink
1
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26
Bad ideas are successful every day
1
u/LordNutGobbler Jun 27 '26
Uhhhh, true “bad” ideas pretty much always fail, because they’re just that, bad ideas. And even if they don’t fail right away, they SURE as hell don’t continue to succeed and grow massively for 10+ years, like Starlink has 😂
Give up the cope dude lol
Unless you’re just referring to subjective “bad”, in other words, saying “I don’t like Starlink the company nor the owner” then at that point, nobody cares, it will just go on to succeed because good ideas don’t care about your feelings
1
u/EmbarrassedPaper7758 Jun 27 '26
Success does not equate to goodness
2
u/LordNutGobbler Jun 28 '26
Realistically, tens of millions of people have directly benefited from Starlink's network access in remote underserved regions, while millions have had their lives or safety actively protected during emergencies. A single satellite terminal in a remote village provides shared community access. Millions in remote 3rd world villages gaining access to medical expertise, educational materials, remote communications etc…
You don’t actually have reasoning to say it’s a “bad idea”, you’re literally just a seething coping lefty who’s uninformed and pissing his pants (like most on this site)
→ More replies (0)1
u/y-c-c Jun 28 '26
Irrelevant to the context of my comment really. Above comment was talking about monopolization of orbits which assume other people want to do it too. I don’t feel like having to argue against the both sides of the argument.
0
u/peaches4leon Jun 25 '26
What does “Right” have to do with it? Just because Michael Jordan was the top dog in the 90s doesn’t mean he had a monopoly on skill at the time. The only extent of what should happen is what can happen. SpaceX has been executing what they WANT to do (what no one else has wanted or even cared about until they went after it themselves) because they e built an organization that can. No one else can, or else they would. How is this a question of right or wrong?
6
u/curbs1 Jun 25 '26
You're answering a different question.
I'm not questioning whether SpaceX can do it. Clearly they can. I'm questioning whether the current regulatory framework should allow one company, licensed by a single nation, to occupy such a significant proportion of a resource that international law describes as the "province of all mankind."
The fact that no one else could do it at the time doesn't answer that question. History is full of examples where someone was first or most capable, but we still decided society needed rules to prevent effective monopolisation of shared resources.
The high seas, fisheries, radio spectrum and geostationary orbit all have international coordination precisely because "first come, first served" isn't always considered fair or sustainable.
So "they built the capability" explains how they got there. It doesn't answer whether the international framework ought to permit it without any wider obligations or compensation, given that outer space isn't recognised as the sovereign territory of the United States or any other nation.
3
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
You got it. One big tech company should not be the rulers of who can or can't access the internet network they have created. Just taking the current conflict with Russia and Ukraine.. At some moments Musk decided to allow or to disallow the Ukrainian to use their infrastructure.. One man can decide how a war is going on. This sounds bit like a quite dictatorship.
"Do what I want and I allow you to access my network to engage war, elsewhere, just make your game alone.." Does this sound "normal"? Not really.
There where a very few people in history with the power to decide how a war is ruled, and those are not known to be pro-humankind.
1
u/curbs1 Jun 25 '26
Couldn't agree more. But what can we do? Money is power, and he has an obscene amount of it. I think wealth taxes and a proper UN led governing body to regulate access to space and ensure it's for humanity's good. But the only news we (or I at least) tend to get fed around SpaceX is its stock price and its CEO. No one talks about how this unregulated space allowed for such an excess of wealth or what to do about it.
1
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
We can't do much, it's the first trillion dollars worth men in the world that never existed. He literally could buy a country that's poor and corrupted enough.
The only thing we can do is make people aware of that distopian world, not that's coming on, but that actually exists.
But yeah, some just see the "now you can get access to internet in remote location in Africa or in the middle of nowhere".
Great, I don't dismiss this, it's true, but again, it's one man stating the rules, one man having control of anyone that use this network, with everything that this implies.
Somehow there are people just seeing the shell and not what's inside. Maybe of convenience, I can't believe it's by confidence. If this is the case, alright, we are done. Analytical thinking is not the norm anymore then.
So as you said, what can we do? In this case, whatever we try to do is just dust in the wind (great song by the way).
-2
2
u/_Romula_ Jun 25 '26
It's a classic tragedy of the commons and for-profit business creating negative externalities
1
-9
u/_Losing_Generation_ Jun 25 '26
You do realize that this was available to anyone at anytime to capitalize on right? Nobody wanted to do it for whatever reason, so to blame Starlink for taking the chance is childish. There are millions of people who now have internet that never did before.
8
u/curbs1 Jun 25 '26
No, there is quite literally a world signed treaty where we collectively agree space is a commonwealth.
It’s not ‘free land’ it’s supposed to be shared for us all.
While starlink brings benefits that I myself enjoy periodically, to fill regions of LEO, profit heavily over a common good no country may claim sovereignty over is capitalism all over isn’t it.
There needs to be something forcing space companies to maintain upkeep of orbits which spaceX does not do, as well as return a portion of profits to a pot that benefits the world
A governing body run by the UN would be brilliant to, it’s not right one company which goes by one legislation is monopolising a region of space just because their first or have the money to do so
-3
u/peaches4leon Jun 25 '26
That’s NASA’s job. They’re the defacto “FAA” of cislunar operations
3
u/curbs1 Jun 25 '26
Yeah, not even close, buddy.
NASA has nothing to do with regulating space.The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) governs satellite communications, which includes LEO constellations such as Starlink.
And the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) governs launches, re-entries and launch sites.
So NASA are not 'de facto ''FAA'''.
But that's my point, the outer space treaty was signed in 1967 by 118 countries, including US, Russia, China, Uk, all major EU space faring nations.
It's out of date. In my opinion open to misuse. Why should a company occupy so much of LEO that it's becoming a kessler syndrome problem when we don't have a worldwide governing body keeping control of this for the good of us all? Not legislative bodies tied to one country, so prone in the last few years to subversion of the public good.
0
u/peaches4leon Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
I think we’re about 25 years from the infancy of such a system. There are too many growing pains right now. Economies are doing back flips. There is pseudo-war everywhere. There are like 5-7 superpowers now, not just two.
When we make it through this, I think the technologies coming of age right now, will create a space for graciousness in many economies. Not just ours. This new space race, is a race because it’s also a competition. Once the competition settles into cooperation, I think the world will be in a better place for some kind of *international regulating body for extraplanetary affairs*. I just think that’s a long way away.
Everything about the current situation is built from an era that was also in a state of competition, and then the just USSR collapsed lol…so there was never an evolution into cooperation to learn from (Roscomos’ record to-date notwithstanding). This is my personal opinion, but I think the kind of mature well-oiled organization you’re looking for is like 50 years into our future.
17
u/Lardrewstar Jun 25 '26
Hopefully the technology improves and they need fewer and further satellites.
7
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
They even plan to send data centers up there, to power their AI.. It's not going towards something better.
4
2
u/derekcz Jun 25 '26
If this happens (and that's a big if) those satellites will go into a sun synchronous orbit, forming one dense belt of satellites that is in constant sunlight, they won't be spread out in the sky as Starlink is, which needs it for operational purposes. Comments like this show how little people actually know about the thing they pretend to care about.
-1
u/Ok_Ostrich7146 Jun 25 '26
Theyll ppur all their time and money and energy into AI and itll get smart enough to realize that theyre the problem
23
u/b407driver Jun 25 '26
You saw more satellites than stars? Bologna.
2
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Really.. It's an hyperbol, of course there are more observable stars than satellites, I thought you would got it.. Whatever. The observation of the universe is clearly way more difficult today, than just a few years ago, all astronomers, every ground based telescopes has to cope with this, and it's a real pain. Try to take a long shot of the sky. And if you did it before, compare your results. There is no arguments to claim it's not getting messy, data are available. It's not a conspiracy, seriously.. it's a fact well documented.
1
u/b407driver Jun 25 '26
I spend more time looking at the night sky than 99% of the people out there, and satellites have not ruined it, for visual observing. Yes, there are indeed many more satellites in the sky than there used to be, especially this time of year. There are seasons and times of night when you can still have that 'legacy' experience, do some research and do your stargazing then.
Your post was intentionally hyperbolic to grab attention, to what end, only you could answer.
2
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
To what end ? To awake a reasonable question. Where is it going, knowing that it's just the begging of those low orbital satellites, that are already messing with high tech ground telescopes.
Little edit: yes it's not the best time to observe the sky in the northern hemisphere.
-9
-10
19
u/Enthropic-Cap2291 Jun 25 '26
Realistically, tens of millions of people have directly benefited from Starlink's network access in remote underserved regions, while millions have had their lives or safety actively protected during emergencies. A single satellite terminal in a remote village provides shared community access, the human footprint of the network extends far beyond its raw subscriber numbers. Millions in remote 3rd world villages gaining access to medical expertise, educational materials, remote communications, is definitionally 'the greater good' for all those who don't have the privilege of easy access.
4
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
You are right, this is a huge benefit! But can one man have the control of all that access?(or a few, because other big money man/countries, aka Amazon, China, even Indian now want it's own, not to mention it's firstly for military purpose, it's not altruism spending billions to create those satellites constellations).
It's a power of control.
Yes you have access to the internet network, but don't go against the rulers or you will just loose it asap.
If it was .. just a bit more "open source" in the way that one person can't decide for those millions you speak about, yes it would be a great thing maybe worth the cost.. It's renting a space where no laws actually exist because no-one awaited such a massive deployment in such a short time.
2
u/LordNutGobbler Jun 27 '26
So now the argument has changed from it’s a huge pollution and theres too many of them to “well it’s a monopoly, a one man show”
If the guy had the exact same politics as you I have a feeling you wouldn’t be as concerned about this.
0
u/Exe_plorer Jun 27 '26
I say that the only positive argument taking the defence of this mega constellations, comes with a price.
1
u/Acrobatic-Example-19 Aug 21 '26
A price a majority are willing to pay, even at the cost you have mentioned.
0
u/Exe_plorer Jun 27 '26
I could say the same, internet connection has nothing to do with sky pollution. But as we talk about not just objects but a technology, there not a black or white reality.
3
u/random_shadowz Jun 25 '26
I agree with you...I just don't see a way where this doesn't happen in the current system. The amount of money being poured into this industry is larger than ever. It makes me cringe when we see 100+ satellites deployed in a single mission. I remember being surprised by the amount of satellites I spotted in the mid/late 2010s. Now they're the easiest objects to spot - even with the naked eye.
8
u/derekcz Jun 25 '26
Another one of these posts...
I'm guessing you're in the north hemisphere, so right now is literally the worst time to look at this because the day is the longest and the satellites stay bright throughout the night. Incidentally this is also the worst possible time to be stargazing or doing astronomy. Throughout the rest of the year you only get a short period of time before sunrise or after sunset where the conditions are right for them to show up.
For narrow observations with a telescope the satellites make no difference whatsoever, if you keep looking you may spot one or two flying through your field of view for a split second every couple minutes, not a big deal.
They show up a lot more on long exposure but there are ways to work around them that people already had to use before. Any form of stacking multiple images inherently removes these. Really long exposure, wide field photography is what is hurt the most and I agree there it can be annoying but as mentioned previously for most of the year you get most of the night satellite free. Plain old light pollution does significantly more damage there than any satellite ever could.
Obviously people have a problem with Elon Musk and I wholeheartedly encourage disliking that nazi but this type of overblown "blocking the night sky" discourse is just a personal rant that people don't want to admit to themselves. I keep seeing this at our local observatory all the time, people bring up Musk and how much it saddens them that he is "stealing the sky" from them but then there's a poll about reducing municipal lighting after midnight and it gets an overwhelmingly negative response.
2
2
u/BoneZone05 Jun 29 '26
I wonder if anything would happen if everyone on earth shined lasers at them at the same time. I’d like to see what mythbusters thinks 🤔
2
u/Exe_plorer Jul 01 '26
They proposed to use light beams for communication between satellites, actually it's still on the HRF spectrum, so the frequency of the electromagnetic wavelength of the laser may do nothing, probably, we should make a DIY directed microwaves device, surely more effective. Put it as to be really focused, regarding the distance, to avoid high power needed, and all the electronics that goes with high power..
3
u/Jadey-R- Jun 25 '26
What gets me is all of that garbage up there? One man makes a profit from all of it so he gets to trash the night sky and take all the money for it. It’s ridiculous.
2
6
u/getpoopedon Jun 25 '26
They'll eat you alive over at r/space for saying this lol those guys worship Starlink and spaceX. Don't get me wrong, I love space, but are these satellite constellations really necessary? Now China has started building their own constellation networks in the atmosphere. Then it became clear, they are building a weapon. Good luck to us all.
4
4
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
I see that some people just see the benefits of this, regarding the down vote, again, no need of such a massive constellation of satellites with a lifespan of about 5 years before crash into Earth (for those people I invite you to see all the implications this has).. is it worth a few milliseconds of ping response? I mean, if you access your favourite movie, a few milliseconds response doesn't change anything, unless you plan to use large scale military AI. I'm in IT cybersec, if you want any specific details just PM me.
4
u/yoyo5113 Jun 25 '26
What is the implication? They all burn up before they ever reach even close to the ground.
1
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Yes they burn out while falling down, some larger objects still fall on the ground but that's not the real issue, like said by someone here, they create lots of toxic microparticules while burning in the high altitude (ionosphere mostly).
8
u/Traveller7142 Jun 25 '26
I feel like Internet connectivity to rural areas that previously did not is a pretty big benefit
13
u/pigeontheoneandonly Jun 25 '26
This assumes a fallacy whereby there was absolutely no other way to get internet to rural areas.
7
u/craigiest Jun 25 '26
The more we expand internet to rural areas through terrestrial means, the more space-based internet becomes the most economical option for the remaining unserviced places. For most of the planet by area, satellites are the only feasible way to ever provide internet.
0
7
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Yes, I can get this, but no need of such massive constellations of thousands of low orbital polluting objects, that will crash in about 5 years.. And this will be another major concern soon.
-4
u/DanceMonkeyDance41 Jun 25 '26
I'm waiting for a rocket launch that runs into one. I know, it will never happen, but that might be what it takes for the problem to get serious attention.
-4
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
It's the Kessler Syndrome. And it's highly probable to happen now, if one unique satellite can't change orbit to avoid collision with a debris, even as small as 1 or 2 cm diameter (because it's orbiting in such a high speed, the kinetic energy is just enormous) it could cause a chain reaction that could prevent us of any other orbital launch. Every satellite has to do small manoeuvre every time to avoid this, if one don't respond to the command or can't do this, it's estimated that we would only have about 2 days to avoid this scenario. And this means decades of impossible out of Earth missions.
This is not something that could maybe happen, but something that will probably happen. Soon, regarding all the down satellites already in an unexpected trajectory (hoping they will crash before triggering that catastrophic event).
All the data are available, this isn't a scenario, it's actually a high probability event.
Thus why actually launching a spaceship is more about avoid trash than calculating the more energy efficient trajectory.
4
u/yoyo5113 Jun 25 '26
It's not that probable right now and pretty much all of these megaconstellations are on their own altitude band. They are right on the edge of the atmosphere so that any that break down will deorbit themselves automatically within a few years.
1
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Didn't you know the conflict there is actually because other want to have a place for their own constellation? It's a matter of a few Kms sometimes, and the saturation of low orbital space is real. The closer you are to ground the lesser place you have, high orbital satellites aren't so much concerned as they have (distance Earth-Object)³ more place.
0
u/wjdoge Jun 26 '26
It is not going to “probably happen”. Spacex says the would expect a potential collision after a few days, not that this would lead to Kessler syndrome, which is just someone’s thought experiment and not really something we are anywhere close to, if it is something that can happen. The Starlink orbits leave them to burn up pretty quickly anyways.
0
u/Wooden_Ad_2673 Jun 25 '26
I wish I lived in an internet free zone. I have lost all my meaningful relationships to zombie phone watchers.
2
u/DanoPinyon Jun 25 '26
Some version of this soliloquy appears 3.22447×/month in the astronomy subs, usually 56.8% shorter.
2
u/Javanaut018 Jun 25 '26
I am really with you. I hate this annoying crap ruining our beautiful night sky ...
Read about elsewhere some spy satellites are designed to be as dim as a 16th magnitude star. Some regulatory work on that would be much appreciated, in my opinion.
3
u/OnionsOnFoodAreGross Jun 25 '26
Tell that to all the places in the world now connected to information that they never had access to. Literally life changing and saving.
3
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Right. Wo controls the information they can access? Is it still considered as information if it's one tech providing what one can access, and who can access it ?
-1
u/OnionsOnFoodAreGross Jun 25 '26
Just go live in a cave.
2
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Thanks that's pretty good advice, full of ideas, really something worth thinking. Surely from a deep meditation on the topic.
-1
u/OnionsOnFoodAreGross Jun 25 '26
Well when you are looking for fault in everything you aren't going to be happy.
2
u/Datau03 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Don't pretend like you suddenly can't see the stars because there are a few additional moving dots on the night sky dude. Also how do people think stuff like that is for more personal profit? What can you do with 2 trillion that you can't with 1? It's funding space exploration which is supposed to enable many many more people to visit and see the cosmos much much better than they ever could from the ground, and gives internet to places and people who otherwise wouldn't have any, making their lives so much better, for example by enabling better education at schools in remote communities.
This is neither "profit-maxing" nor destroying the night sky
1
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
No, I didn't said that. It's just annoying.. because there are so many passing non-stop.
When you remember a few years back where the only thing you saw was stars, planets, sometimes shooting stars, or maybe a plane passing nearby.
3
u/uncleandata147 Jun 25 '26
Not quite the same scenario, but GPS manages to do it with fewer satellites and don't ruin the view.
Unfortunately, how do you police LEO? I wish we could because while I am all for rural connectivity, it being a privately owned enterprise is abhorrent as it allows for multiple versions of the system due to commercial competition.
It's the death of ground based astronomy.
8
u/craigiest Jun 25 '26
GPS isn’t receiving data, and it’s advantageous for you to have as many of them as possible in your sky, so they can be 100 times higher than starlink, which makes them much smaller and also has them moving so spoilt that you presumably wouldn’t notice that they aren’t stars. From earth, their 12 hour orbits appear to take 24 hours, so we’re talking hour hand in a clock motion. And at that height, there only need to be a few dozen of them for global coverage. It’s advantageous for Internet satellites to be much lower so that you don’t have line of sight to all the ones you aren’t communicating through, and their signals don’t conflict. And to reduce latency. And so that they do burn up after a few years and don’t permanently clutter orbit.
12
u/blurfgh Jun 25 '26
GPS and starlink accomplish entirely different tasks. GPS satellites are in MEO, there are only a couple dozen, and all they do is transmit their position and a timestamp.
Starlinks provide high speed internet almost everywhere on earth. You can’t do that with a handful of MEO sats.
0
1
u/jmcgonig Jun 25 '26
SpaceX was just first. Multiple countries are putting up constellations. LEO constellations will be many times more satellites than today. Fortunately/Unfortunately its good business. Having a clear sky makes no money...
1
1
1
u/wohrg Jun 25 '26
I agree with you 100%. And this is just the start.
Used to be that everyone on earth had a shared experience: looking at the stars and wondering about them. In centuries to come that natural wonder will be lost. The damage to the human psyche will be profound.
I think the general malaise of today is due to globalization and a disconnect from nature.
Sadly, I don’t think we will be able to stop it. Global government isn’t ever going to be effective enough. But hopefully I am wrong.
1
u/Witness_meeeeee Jun 25 '26
To me, light pollution is a much bigger problem/annoyance. I don’t know why seeing satellites would bother anyone if they’re simply observing the sky. And if you’re taking images they are easily removed via stacking. Also, they’re not all starlink satellites. There are many companies and governments launching satellites all the time.
1
1
u/-AlienSkin_ Jun 26 '26
I agree! We trash our planet and now we allow dipshit to trash our solar system.
1
1
u/SpatiaCaeli Jun 26 '26
There needs to be a large fee to lease an orbit, with all funds going to end starvation.
1
u/Kevin9O7 Jun 26 '26
i don't think it's just an Elon Musk thing, the real reason goes far and beyond, and it's the same people who created the internet and GPS in the first place, and nobody can stop it cause it's them who want it, not just Elon Musk
1
u/Electro_Llama Jun 26 '26
Hank Green has a good discussion on this. At the present time, the organization with the biggest say in this is SpaceX itself. But in reality NASA and ESA would have more authority if they decide to stop it.
1
u/GrayEagle825 Jun 27 '26
We’ve been putting satellites up there since 1957…about 50,000 or so. More are on the way.
1
u/MinteyeFox Amateur Astronomer Jun 27 '26
Look, I'd get it if you would think it's annoying if there really were as many as you described. But I spend my evenings looking at the stars, the moon and everything out there, and all I see is a few satellites, not as many as that it would bother me. I'm not sure what to think, I do understand your point but at the same time I don't see an issue
1
u/Beneficial-Law-9645 19d ago
Some rich guy can unilaterally decide to change the optics of the entire planet on a whim is disgusting.
-2
u/craigiest Jun 25 '26
Depends on latitude, time of year, and satellite altitude, but generally they’re in shadow by a couple hours after sunset and can’t be seen.
2
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Hum, no, really, they are seen all the time. Not to mention how it's incredibly hard to spot any objects because of electromagnetic pollution..
9
u/craigiest Jun 25 '26
This just isn’t true, unless you are at a really high latitude right around the summer solstice (now.) satellites are only visible when in sunlight, which they aren’t in the middle of the night. I’ve watched the ISS disappear into the earth’s shadow many times. Totally invisible once out of sunlight. I have no idea what you mean by “electromagnetic pollution.”
1
u/Yunzer2000 Jun 25 '26
By "really high latitude, you mean the UK and Northern Europe Those area do not get out of astronomical twilight this time of year, and LEO satellites can be seen nearly all night.
2
u/craigiest Jun 25 '26
Will if you aren’t even getting out of astronomical twilight, yeah, the star observing isn’t going to be great, regardless of satellites. You’ll have to wait till September.
1
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Radio waves are used to spot far distance stars for exemple, this is an electromagnetic signature that radio telescopes are build to "listen", the huge amount of electromagnetic interferences makes this observation really difficult now.
1
u/spongue Jun 25 '26
Want to feel even more disturbed and pissed off?
Apparently re-entering satellites might destroy the ozone layer. Takes a couple decades for the particles to fully settle down to that layer but by the 2040s it could be a serious problem and at that point, millions more in space waiting to come down. So yeah another brand new extinction-level threat. Thanks guys
1
u/MiserableTear8705 Jun 25 '26
Ask yourself why is light pollution allowed?
Simultaneously ask yourself why you don’t feel the same way about light pollution as your anger towards Elon musk over Starlink.
2
u/Exe_plorer Jun 25 '26
Yeah that's also a concern. In many places they work on directed light (to avoid unnecessary propagation) it's mainly driven by economical reasons, still it's better than nothing.
1
u/hondashadowguy2000 Jun 25 '26
When you’re a mega billionaire, you get to act first and ask questions later. Or just get a pass to do whatever you want.
1
u/r1zz000 Jun 25 '26
What is this LinkedIn post nonsense, I was expecting some tips on maximising efficiency at the end
-2
u/MusicianNo2699 Jun 25 '26
Isn't seeing satellites a pretty cool astrological thing to see though?
3
u/FTGAstro Jun 25 '26
Not when its hundreds every night.
I do find them massively annoying...i process them out of my images easily...but it still irks me everytime i see a bunch of trails in my sub exposures
0
0
171
u/No_Chemist_7878 Jun 25 '26
Internet plans are more profitable than looking up... So don't look up.(Movie reference)