The Curse of Elon Musk: Redirect Satellites to Sun or His Backyard?

  • Context: Stargazing 
  • Thread starter Thread starter davenn
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the impact of satellite launches, particularly those by Elon Musk's Starlink, on astronomy and the night sky. Participants explore the legal, ethical, and practical implications of satellite visibility and interference with astronomical observations, touching on topics such as international space law, potential mitigation strategies, and the conflict between commercial interests and scientific pursuits.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration over the perceived negative impact of satellites on astronomy, suggesting extreme measures like redirecting satellites into the sun or private property.
  • Others argue that the legality of satellite launches is not in question, as they comply with existing regulations, despite concerns about the lack of specific rules addressing their proliferation.
  • There is a discussion about the potential for making satellites less visible through design changes, such as using non-reflective materials, though some participants note the challenges posed by solar panels.
  • Participants propose technical solutions for mitigating the impact of satellites on imaging, including image stacking and software filtering, while acknowledging that these methods may not fully resolve the issue.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of satellite visibility for specific astronomical projects, such as the Thirty Meter Telescope in Hawaii, with suggestions that relocating telescopes could be a solution.
  • Some participants highlight the broader societal implications of light pollution and environmental degradation, linking these issues to technological progress and commercial interests.
  • There are discussions about the visibility of Starlink satellites and their operational altitudes, with some participants noting that while they may be less visible under certain conditions, they still pose challenges for astronomers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement regarding the implications of satellite launches on astronomy, with multiple competing views on the legality, ethical considerations, and potential solutions. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the best course of action or the extent of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include a lack of clarity on the specific regulations governing satellite launches, the technical feasibility of proposed mitigation strategies, and the varying impacts on different astronomical projects. The conversation also reflects differing perspectives on the balance between commercial interests and scientific integrity.

  • #31
davenn said:
This image from the International Astronomical Union
.
View attachment 256070
Seriously? You haven't figured out that Elon Musk is a leader of the vanguard for an imminent alien colonization of the Earth? Putting up hundreds of satellites is to reduce our ability to spot the approaching armada and maybe jam any nuclear missiles we might send their way.

(Btw, it's easy to tell that EM is an alien, just from that lame face mask he always wears.)
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: phinds, davenn and Klystron
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
DEvens said:
The appropriate requirement is for Elon Musk to provide free transport of astronomers, all the telescopes, a large amount of support equipment and material, and family members, to a base on the far side of the moon.
I'm sure he would be happy to promise that.
 
  • #33
Astronomers are not forced to use a system, but it does improve the quality of some observations. It's quite an obvious approach I think.
anorlunda said:
I read that companies other than SpaceX have similar plans for orbiting nets of satellites; on the order of 45K satellites planned so far.
~12000 for Starlink (SpaceX), 650-2500 for OneWeb, ~3000 for Project Kuiper (Amazon). Telesat (Canada) and China are planning constellations with a few hundred satellites. SpaceX is considering more satellites but that is not a fixed plan yet.
 
  • #34
It seems to me reflected photons are wasted photons as far as energy generation is concerned. Why should solar panels be reflective? Alternatively, use the NASA black to trap photons and generate thermal phonons to operate solid-state thermoelectric generators (Alphabet Energy).
 
  • #35
An ideal solar panel wouldn't reflect anything but an ideal solar panel doesn't exist.
Gary Feierbach said:
Alternatively, use the NASA black to trap photons and generate thermal phonons to operate solid-state thermoelectric generators (Alphabet Energy).
Too inefficient, especially without a cooling source.
 
  • #36
mfb said:
Too inefficient, especially without a cooling source.

Assuming the same size for collector and radiator I calculated a theoretical maximum of 0.85 % for the efficiency (according to Carnot's theorem). Is that possible? That would be really inefficient.
 
  • #37
Gary Feierbach said:
It seems to me reflected photons are wasted photons as far as energy generation is concerned. Why should solar panels be reflective?
mfb said:
An ideal solar panel wouldn't reflect anything but an ideal solar panel doesn't exist.
Most solar panels are black and reflect very little; the issue is the satellites themselves, which are mirrored for thermal management. If you made the satellites themselves black (or covered with solar panels), one side would be really hot and the other really cold.

Now, even at low reflectivity (a few percent), you'd get a lot of light from a flat solar panel, but it would be a rare, localized flare, not a continuous, widespread, even brightness reflection people are seeing.
 
  • #38
The brightness during orbit raising comes mainly from the solar panel. It is very large compared to the main satellite. The brightness in the operational orbit comes from the satellite body.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #39
mfb said:
The brightness during orbit raising comes mainly from the solar panel. It is very large compared to the main satellite.
But why would that cause it to reflect light toward Earth? Isn't it pointed directly at the sun?
 
  • #40
Is this just a variant of Iridium Flares?

@russ_watters , you're an amateur astronomer, haven't you seen satellite flares before.
On my boat in the keys, the whole harbor watched for ISS flyovers and Iridium Flares, use the heavensabove website as a guide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
Iridium flares[edit]
Double flare - Iridium 6 and its replacement, #51, both flare in a 21-second exposure.
If a first-generation Iridium satellite is still controlled, its flares can be predicted.[1] The Iridium communication satellites have three polished door-sized antennas, 120° apart and at 40° angles with the main bus. The forward antenna faces the direction the satellite is traveling. Occasionally, an antenna reflects sunlight directly down at Earth, creating a predictable and quickly moving illuminated spot on the surface below of about 10 km (6.2 mi) diameter. To an observer this looks like a bright flash, or flare in the sky, with a duration of a few seconds.

Ranging up to −9.5 magnitude, some of the flares are so bright that they can be seen in the daytime. This flashing has caused some annoyance to astronomers, as the flares occasionally disturb observations.[2]

The article also says:
Flares may also occur from solar panels, but they are not as bright (up to −3.5 magnitude).
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
But why would that cause it to reflect light toward Earth? Isn't it pointed directly at the sun?
Not while it is raising the orbit, where it flies in a configuration that reduces drag. See my previous post.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #42
TeethWhitener said:
From this CNN article:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/29/tech/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-launch-scn/index.html

"Astronomers have also raised concerns about the multitudes of Starlink satellites disrupting their view of the night sky. SpaceX says it's working with the science community on ways to address those issues."
The mfb have already mentioned dark coating, and the SpaceX have deployed a prototype of low-reflectance satellite. So called "Darksat", or Starlink-1130. Specifically for astronomers. The measured g-band brightness reduction is 55%.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.07251.pdf
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: mfb
  • #43
7.57 at 976 km is 7.0 at 550 km, below the visibility for the naked eye even under perfect viewing conditions (typically assumed to be 6 to 6.5). This doesn't include geometry corrections, but overall the conclusion is that Darksat-style satellites completely disappear to the naked eye. Good for a prototype. Musk said that future satellites should be even darker, making them easier to remove from pictures for astronomers.

I noted that Starlink-4 (the latest launch) seems to be harder to spot already, but I don't have precise numbers.

The next launch is planned for March 18, 12:21 UTC (in ~25 hours).
 
  • #44
Even painted black the satellite would block a distant star. Trying to average multiple snaps would interfere with precision measurements needed to determine distance, mass, etc. It's about time to do something about these billionaires that think they do whatever they want.
 
  • #45
davenn said:
Summary:: this guy should be locked up !

Seriously, this guy has destroyed astronomy for amateur and professional alike
His actions are criminal and this is just the start :oldmad::oldmad::oldmad:
just one recent example ...

View attachment 256047Maybe he should redirect his satellites in a path that avoids blocking celestial objects that astronomers are interested in?
May I suggest a path directly INTO the sun? If not, how about directly into Elon's back yard? Either would suit me just fine...
All of Musk's satellites are solutions provided by Dr. Sheldon Cooper(when he was a kid) so if there is anyone to blame it is him.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: anorlunda
  • #46
Half a year and 6 launches later and astronomy still exists. Satellites now come with a sunshade that prevents the Sun from falling onto the most reflective surfaces. This is mainly relevant for satellites in their final orbit to avoid saturating astronomical sensors. In addition they change the orientation of the orbit-raising satellites when they are close to the terminator, making them much darker - this change largely affects the naked-eye visibility early on.
lstellaus said:
Even painted black the satellite would block a distant star.
That probability is utterly negligible, and even then it's for less than a millisecond.
lstellaus said:
Trying to average multiple snaps would interfere with precision measurements needed to determine distance, mass, etc.
Quite the opposite, you need to do that anyway.
lstellaus said:
It's about time to do something about these billionaires that think they do whatever they want.
Like regulating satellite launches? Great, because that's already being done.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Motore
  • #47
mfb said:
Half a year and 6 launches later and astronomy still exists. Satellites now come with a sunshade that prevents the Sun from falling onto the most reflective surfaces. This is mainly relevant for satellites in their final orbit to avoid saturating astronomical sensors. In addition they change the orientation of the orbit-raising satellites when they are close to the terminator, making them much darker - this change largely affects the naked-eye visibility early on.That probability is utterly negligible, and even then it's for less than a millisecond.Quite the opposite, you need to do that anyway.Like regulating satellite launches? Great, because that's already being done.
Maybe we should create stelites with big gravity(high density) so we could see the stars behind them due to gravitational lensing.
 
  • #48
Helena Wells said:
Maybe we should create stelites with big gravity(high density) so we could see the stars behind them due to gravitational lensing.
You might want to run some numbers on that. To misquote Chief Brody, you're going to need a bigger rocket.
 
  • #49
Ibix said:
You might want to run some numbers on that. To misquote Chief Brody, you're going to need a bigger rocket.
We would need a denser rocket not bigger. Probably made of lead and some of its oxides and we could see behind the satellite.

Lead has a density 1k times less than a neutron star so the effects are not neglible.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Motore
  • #50
Helena Wells said:
We would need a denser rocket not bigger. Probably made of lead and some of its oxides and we could see behind the satellite.

But even if you manage to fulfil this requirement, there's still the small issue of getting it off the ground :smile:
 
  • #51
etotheipi said:
But even if you manage to fulfil this requirement, there's still the small issue of getting it off the ground :smile:
Lead is dense not massive. So it won't be hard.
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: Motore
  • #52
Helena Wells said:
Lead is dense not massive. So it won't be hard.

but lensing is proportional to mass... it might take up less volume, but you must still do the same amount of work (and in the case of lead - an awful lot!) to bring it away from Earth! I dare say there's a reason that no one has ever tried to build a rocket out of lead...
 
  • #53
etotheipi said:
but lensing is proportional to mass... it might take up less volume, but you must still do essentially the same amount of work to bring it away from Earth! I dare say there's a reason that no one has ever tried to build a rocket out of lead...
Lensing is not just proportial to mass it is proportional to the object's density as well.
If that was the case then gravitational lensing of a neutron star could be the same with the gravitational lensing of the sun.

But yes a rocket made of lead will be more massive and we would need extra energy to lift it up.
 
  • Haha
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: davenn and Motore
  • #54
Helena Wells said:
Lensing is not just proportial to mass it is proportional to the object's density as well.

Well, mass is proportional to density, at constant volume, though Wikipedia states the dependency of the deflection angle ##\theta## explicitly with mass, as ##\theta = \frac{4GM}{rc^2}## if ##r## is the distance from the mass to the light.

But this is besides the point...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Ibix
  • #55
Helena Wells said:
Lead has a density 1k times less than a neutron star so the effects are not neglible.
As I say, you need to run the numbers.

The angle of deflection for light passing a distance ##r## from an object of mass ##M## is ##\theta=\frac{4GM}{rc^2}##. The Hubble space telescope has a mass of around 11,000kg and an angular resolution of 1/20 arcsecond. Using Hubble's mass as a guide to what we can put into orbit and its angular resolution as a guide to the deflection we can detect, you would need all of that mass inside a radius of around 10-26m. Note that the Schwarzschild radius associated with 11,000kg is approximately three orders of magnitude greater than this.

A lump of lead isn't even close to producing detectable deflection of light.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi and Motore
  • #56
Helena Wells said:
Lead has a density 1k times less than a neutron star so the effects are not neglible.
Wait, what? Did you confuse 1k (1000) with 10trillion (10000000000000)?
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi and Ibix
  • #57
No I am pretty sure it is 1k.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: davenn and Motore
  • #58
Helena Wells said:
No I am pretty sure it is 1k.
Please cite your sources for this claim.

Edit: While I'm waiting, nuclear diameters are of order 10-14m and atomic diameters of order 10-10m. Neutronium will, therefore, be around (104)3 times denser than ordinary matter.
 
  • #59
Ibix said:
Please cite your sources for this claim.

Edit: While I'm waiting, nuclear diameters are of order 10-14m and atomic diameters of order 10-10. Neutronium will, therefore, be around (104)3 times denser than ordinary matter.
Ah yes it says white dwarfs not lead! Oups.
 
  • #60
Ibix said:
Please cite your sources for this claim.

Edit: While I'm waiting, nuclear diameters are of order 10-14m and atomic diameters of order 10-10m. Neutronium will, therefore, be around (104)3 times denser than ordinary matter.
Well blame Leonard for this.Always blame Leonard.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: Motore