Just need to scream a little bit about how there are actually hard limits to how much stuff we can have in orbit without severe consequences!
-
Just need to scream a little bit about how there are actually hard limits to how much stuff we can have in orbit without severe consequences! It's ok to say that out loud, even if the techbros don't want to hear it!
It's ok (and vitally important) to have in your list of recommendations for satellites operators "Don't launch so many satellites." This is really pretty key to not destroying the night sky, LEO, and/or the atmosphere.
-
G gustavinobevilacqua@mastodon.cisti.org shared this topic
-
As long as I'm screaming, I hate hate hate that lower altitude orbits has become a standard request from astronomers to satellite operators.
Lower orbits make satellites blur out more for the specific setup of the Vera Rubin Observatory, I do not know if this is true for any other observatories in the world.
Lower orbits make satellites brighter and faster, which is worse for naked-eye stargazers and astrophotographers, and presumably for wildlife though nobody I know has studied that yet.
-
But the worst misconception is that the Earth's shadow will block more of the satellites at lower altitudes. This is true, but ONLY if you are at latitudes closer to the equator than 40 or so.
If you're closer to the poles (particularly around 50N or S, where I live, and a lot of you in Europe live), the Earth's shadow doesn't help. There's even more naked-eye visible satellites.
Visibility Predictions for Near-future Satellite Megaconstellations: Latitudes near 50° Will Experience the Worst Light Pollution
Visibility Predictions for Near-future Satellite Megaconstellations: Latitudes near 50° Will Experience the Worst Light Pollution, Lawler, Samantha M., Boley, Aaron C., Rein, Hanno
(iopscience.iop.org)
-
@sundogplanets I'm a bit confused here, can I ask a question?
As a person living a 21st century life, the thing that worries me most about the current developments in space isn't problems for astronomy, it's Kessler syndrome. I thought lower orbits help dramatically with that, because despite the much higher crash probabilities the debris will clear within a decade or two, and then we could maybe re-start the space program and be less stupid the second time around.
But if you put enough dead satellites at orbits above 1000 km, we can end up screwed for centuries.
I appreciate your main point that we should simply be more picky about what we launch and why. But arguing for *higher* altitudes given the current "anything goes" launch environment doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Where do you think I'm going wrong in this line of reasoning?
-
@skyglowberlin @sundogplanets Starlink satellites are de-orbited after ~5 years already. Which means most of the very bright first-gen ones have already been replaced by newer ones that are ~70% less bright, due to adding visors (since June 2020) as well as more mitigation features later.
-
@raucao @skyglowberlin Dude you're completely wrong about Starlink satellites being less bright now: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.00107
-
@raucao @skyglowberlin And Starlink quietly stopped using visors many years ago. And made their satellites bigger, and bigger, and bigger.
