An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2025/04/a-stunning-image-of-the-australian-desert-illuminates-the-growing-problem-of-satellite-pollution/

by surprisetalk • 1 year ago

194 104 1 year ago

thisiscolossal.com

kofianon• 1 year ago

A startup idea: launch satellites to capture clean night sky photos, with tiered subscription model of course.

kibwen• 1 year ago

Startup idea: launch anti-satellite satellites to de-orbit other satellites littering your airspace.

luqtas• 1 year ago

HN Startup idea: train a gen. AI on NASA photos and sell custom photos /s

pdw• 1 year ago

The Kessler syndrome will take care of it

goku125• 1 year ago

There's no concept of airspace in space. You have very few avenues to keep a sat restricted to a geographic region. Orbits like geostationary and molniya exist - but they come with their own limitations for many applications.

pixelesque2• 1 year ago

As someone who co-incidentally started dabbling in Astrophotography as a hobby in early 2019 before Starlink launched, back then you literally could capture a single 20-second exposure (on a very wide lens, so no obvious star trail/blur at that focal length due to the Earth's rotation), and get images with no satellites.

Now (and even in 2021 it was getting hard to do that) it's impossible to do that, even with 10 second exposures.

What's needed now is multiple exposures, and merging/integrating them in something like Siril (https://siril.org/) to remove the obvious satellite trails.

However, arguably, integrating multiple exposures, while annoying and time-consuming workflow-wise (i.e. can't just look at images directly from camera, and currently need to convert to TIFF first) is often the better way to get slightly-less-noisy images anyway, and integrate effectively longer exposures without star-trails, so it's a tricky one.

genewitch5• 1 year ago

Auto stakkert

I think it runs off a .mov or other video file, you add black frames, etc.

nntwozz• 1 year ago

You know those airplanes with a banner at the beach?

I can imagine a constellation of satellites writing ads (live) in space using mirrors and other nifty tech.

Unless regulation stops it.

ibizaman• 1 year ago

That’s so true. I can see it too. The technology to make that must be super fun to work on but please I hope this will never happen. Can you imagine turning the whole sky as a giant pixelated screen to constantly show us ads? That’s as dystopian as it gets. Add to that the probable less than secure software to run it and hackers trying to show stuff up there. That’s something out of a Douglas Adams book. xD

disconcision• 1 year ago

earliest sci-fi antecedent i know off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon

blululu• 1 year ago

There was a Russian start up planning to do this a few years back. They had actually reached a deal with Pepsi’s Russian operations until the public backlash convinced them to find a different public relations strategy. https://phys.org/news/2019-01-astronomers-russian-billboards...

jfengel2• 1 year ago

I don't think such a thing could hold together very long, unless it was just a string in a line. Maybe in Morse code?

With multiple launches you could probably get several parallel strings, and use it like a dot matrix printer. It would be a heck of a stunt. But I wouldn't expect it to last for more than one orbit, and only part of the planet could see it.

ordu• 1 year ago

You can change brightness and color of individual satellites as they move, so they would match the "pixel" they are in now. Just imagine swarm of very small emitting light bugs moving chaotically behind your screen and changing colors as they move from one pixel to an other. The only issue is to make sure that at every moment each pixel has enough bugs to get the required brightness.

dreamcompiler• 1 year ago

Unless regulation stops it.

Or a ground-based megawatt IR laser with steerable optics.

fch42• 1 year ago

Somehow, this sounds quite appealing.

I'm waiting for the dystopian SciFi novel now where earth's last survivors blast the escape route through that cloud of satellite rubbish for their Starship (TM), by use of an array of those.

One can always dream.

bethekidyouwant• 1 year ago

Like regulation stopped trawling the ocean floor?

wat10000• 1 year ago

Anyone attempting such a thing needs to be instantly put to death.

I’m fine with putting dots in the sky as a necessary side effect of providing some sort of useful service. Worldwide connectivity seems worth making astronomical observations a bit harder. But visual pollution for its own sake should be harshly discouraged.

jfengel2• 1 year ago

"Stitching together 343 distinct photos,"

I don't doubt that this is a real problem for astronomers and photographers, but I feel like if you had to work that hard, it doesn't really make your case.

threeseed2• 1 year ago

These photos are taken in pitch-black darkness.

You need to take a lot of exposures in order to get the data necessary to even see anything.

rafram• 1 year ago

No, you need to take a long exposure. Multiple exposures may improve the quality but isn’t necessary at all.

testing223214• 1 year ago

This is a single 10sec exposure in the Aussie outback on old consumer gear ( Sony a7iii )

https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz

You don’t need multiples, and you don’t need an overly long exposure.

t0bia_s2• 1 year ago

This is not true. Image in article is taken (and stack from many images) during sunset/sunrise when satellites are lighted by sun while photographer is in dark. It's not that visible at night.

darylteo• 1 year ago

In his defense, he was shooting a star trail. @10s per exposure, 6 per minute, becomes 360 per hour.

I believe 30s might be more appropriate for star trails which makes satellite trails oh so much more obvious. But that means a 2-3 hour session of 2 exposures per minute.

I also used to take hundreds of photos in meteor season - and having to diff between meteors and satellites was quite time consuming.

dylan6042• 1 year ago

in photos, meteors and satellites do not look the same. satellite trails are consistent lines. meteors start small, flare in the middle, and then ends small again. they are easy for humans to distinguish, so i'd assume some software could do it as well

WalterBright7• 1 year ago

Just paint the satellites black?

pixelesque2• 1 year ago

Might then have a lot of overheating satellites :)

WalterBright7• 1 year ago

Put the black surface an inch away from the satellite, supported by standoffs. That'll keep the heat away from the satellite.

Also, the black surface only needs to be on the Earth facing side.

smallnix• 1 year ago

Yes https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

xoa2• 1 year ago

Can't tell if you're joking or not, but SpaceX has indeed been collaborating with astronomical observatories to reduce the apparent magnitude (brightness) to ground for Starlink satellites. It's not as if the potential issues weren't apparent and reported on pretty early on, ie, [0] in summer 2020 before the network entered beta. It's not perfect and the period during orbit raising before the satellites enter operational orbits is more challenging, but very significant reductions have been achieved per recs, see for example "Starlink Gen 2 Mini Satellites Photometric Characterization" [1] in 2023 and "The Brightness of Starlink Mini Satellites During Orbit-Raising" [2] in 2024:

When magnitudes are adjusted to a uniform distance of 1000 km the means are 4.58 and 7.52, respectively. The difference of 2.94 between distance-adjusted magnitudes above and below threshold implies that mitigation is 93% effective in reducing the brightness of orbit-raising spacecraft.

So there has been progress, though more may be possible particularly as Starship gives them more mass to work with for less money. That may bring new possibilities to spend mass on "cosmetic" purposes to shade and further reduce magnitude even if it contributes nothing to the core functionality. Same as more mass may allow regulators to feasibly require higher levels of redundancy and more margin for deorbiting in case of issues or at EOL.

Of course, that does leave older unmitigated working sats contributing to light pollution for the rest of their operational lifetimes, though worth noting that one of many major advantages for low-LEO/VLEO operation is that by design such lifetimes are much shorter, and in turn generation refresh will happen more quickly. Perhaps more importantly long term, there aren't as far as I know any actual international standards and agreements towards responsible brightness mitigation (or other issues like disposing of expended upper stages responsibly, standardized end-of-life deorbiting, etc). SpaceX has, for both PR and simple corporate self-interest reasons, been a pretty good actor so far even if they get a lot of attention for being the leading first mega constellation. But I really hope follow on efforts from other players can hit the ground running with magnitude reductions at least as good, and that SpaceX itself continues to improve (or at a bare minimum not backslide).

High bandwidth fully global comms is simply too valuable a capability to really imagine going back at this point. But that's no reason not to pursue reasonable compromise mitigations, and potentially some sort of funds to ultimately create far more orbital telescopes as well as part of the package taking full advantage of what upcoming cheap megalift will make possible.

----

0: "Impact of Satellite Constellations on Optical Astronomy and Recommendations Toward Mitigations" | https://aas.org/sites/default/files/2020-08/SATCON1-Report.p...

1: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.06657

2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.12007

WalterBright7• 1 year ago

Can't tell if you're joking or not

Not. Often obvious simple solutions are overlooked. For example, NASA spent huge sums of money trying to design a gas gauge that will work in weightless conditions. Until an engineer suggested just having a "reserve" tank that has enough to bring the spacecraft out of orbit.

Another one was NASA spend a lot of money trying to figure out how to not have the Apollo capsule overheat from the sun. The trivial solution was to make it a rotisserie, i.e. slowly rotate it.

defrost4• 1 year ago

It's not just optical pollution, the same satellites visible in the article photo over the Pinnacles are leaking radio spectrum noise into the ostensibly "Radio Quiet Zone" of the nearby Murchison that's home to cosmic microwave sensors and one regional part of the developing global SKA radio telescope platform.

WalterBright7• 1 year ago

It should also be possible to de-orbit obsolete satellites faster if they can at end-of-life deploy a "sail" that will cause more drag.

dredmorbius• 1 year ago

Eddy-current-generating tethers seem a more practical option:

<https://www.colorado.edu/faculty/kantha/sites/default/files/...>

(A plot point in Neal Stephenson's Seveneves.)

youngtaff• 1 year ago

And then we have to consider what’s the effect of all those vapourised metals on the atmosphere

perilunar3• 1 year ago

Even better, paint it vantablack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack

mmooss2• 1 year ago

That would seem to remediate one problem, but they still block the view of cameras and telescopes - worse, in a way, that they might block the view without the viewer realizing they missed the occulded star.

macinjosh• 1 year ago

It is so polluted you need professional camera gear and processing of hundreds of photos together in order to show it. Get real. Internet access for poor, remote rural areas across the global is more important than convenient timelapse photography.

threeseed2• 1 year ago

a) You can take these photos with a smart phone.

b) In Australia we are rolling out fibre to rural areas and are testing 10Gb plans. Starlink will never come close to those speeds.

bigfatkitten• 1 year ago

And you can see them with the naked eye. You don't even need to go anywhere terribly remote; there's sufficient darkness a 20 minute drive south of Canberra (population ~470,000, for those not familiar.)

throwaway2037• 1 year ago

I thought that the Australia National Broadband Network mostly services rural areas with microwave dishes (shortwave radio)? Are they changing their strategy? The original point of microwaves was to reduce cost of laying (fibre) cable. I tried to Google for any recent news about this roll-out that you speak of. Do you have a link that you can share?

ezconnect• 1 year ago

The poor can't afford it. Military use is the only way Starlink will stay afloat.

testing223214• 1 year ago

You are so far from the mark out is staggering. Starlink is priced differently in different countries, and is wildly popular in developing and undeveloped countries.

saddat• 1 year ago

Starling et al are about profit, ignoring their impact to humanity

Panzer04• 1 year ago

And they profit because people need the valuable service they provide.

I doubt astronomy is as important as providing good internet access to millions of people in low-service areas around the globe.

blitzar• 1 year ago

Poor, remote rural people need influencers to tell them which lambo to buy too.

madmask2• 1 year ago

I wonder what uncontacted tribes think about starlink

chii• 1 year ago

well, if you could observe these things with the naked eye, they might imagine it's similar to a passing meteor.

teamonkey5• 1 year ago

You absolutely can see them with the naked eye. Very easy to spot on any given clear night if you know what to look for, especially when they’re moving in a cluster. They don’t look like meteors, far too slow.

madmask2• 1 year ago

I saw them myself with my naked eyes! They look like the iss

mock-possum• 1 year ago

If I hadn’t known what starlink was the first time I saw it, I would have assumed it was something artificial - the spacing and trajectory is far too regular to be a comet breaking up or something like that.

sandspar2• 1 year ago

You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. The benefits of satellites seem worth the cost, at least in the foreseeable future.

mmooss2• 1 year ago

That phrase is not seen as the opposite of wisdom. It is just an excuse to disregard costs and other responsibilities for your own benefit.

sandspar2• 1 year ago

Your statement doesn't make sense.

perilunar3• 1 year ago

I’d be more concerned about the light pollution from the city (Perth?) on the horizon.

ajxs• 1 year ago

Would that be from Perth? Perth is around 180km away. Cervantes and Jurien Bay are nearby towns that could account for that light pollution.

bornfreddy• 1 year ago

I'd be more concerned about both. One evil doesn't cancel the other.

perilunar3• 1 year ago

I'm not. I don't regard satellites as evil. While outside last night looking at the Milky Way I spotted 2 satellites and 3 aircraft. I like seeing the satellites; I dislike that I can't see the Milky Way at home in the city due to the light pollution.

littlestymaar4• 1 year ago

Whataboutism.

trebligdivad• 1 year ago

The clear grid patterns are really fantastic. (I realise that it's bad and all that - but still, those grids are amazing to see)

404mm• 1 year ago

Had the same thought. In a way, that photo is absolutely stunning and beautiful in its own way. But I do understand how this is a huge problem for the astronomers.

ag56• 1 year ago

At no point does the article enlighten me of the actual ‘problem’. The photo is beautiful. The ability to even capture this signifies technological advancement, which I think wonderful.

In some way this reminds me of living in SF back in 2015, and all the arguments over the towers going up in soma. “No one wants the Manhattanization of the city” was accepted fact on both sides. Yet that wasn’t an obvious fact to me at all, and I could never find an argument in support of this ‘fact’.

Can someone enlighten me here?

SequoiaHope• 1 year ago

I do find the juxtaposition of “look at this image of satellites” and “the image is a composition of 360 photographs” to require a certain leap of logic that hasn’t been established. On the one hand, it shows that a lot of satellites are visible throughout the night. On the other hand it’s harder to understand what the broader implications of this are.

asdefghyk• 1 year ago

The article mentions the problem ....

"....Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked....."

CognitiveLens• 1 year ago

I realize it's a nit-pick, but that is not at all the common definition of light pollution as it relates to night skies.

spookie• 1 year ago

imagine if one of those blows up.

Now imagine the probability of the debris hitting other satellites and causing even more debris.

Finally, compare how many satellites have been launched in the past 5 years versus the rest of history.

starkrights2• 1 year ago

You acknowledge the existence of things blocking <something>, and can't imagine that there are people who want to see <something>?

I feel like when <something> is the sky, potential counterpoints can't be that far. For a direct response to your question: the sky and the stars beyond have been present and visible to every human, throughout all of history- how might different people feel about it becoming obstructed? Philosophically? Emotionally? Pragmatically?

The following types of people might feel strongly about this for some reason or another- I feel like steelmaning hypothetical opinions they might have is a really enriching thing to do.

- Photographers / enthusiasts

- Astronomers / enthusiasts

- Those who enjoy nature

I personally have a mixed opinion, probably leaning towards alignment with the above groups, but I can also steelman the thought processes of those who'd think this is cool or fascinating (because of course, it is!)

I'm not trying to convince you of something about the post subject here; The rhetorical questions above are not intended to be read as "how don't you understand this and agree with me", but instead "how/why did these potential viewpoints not find you?" The lack of mention of any other viewpoint comes off as almost poor-faith or naivete.

In the SWE community, people place a lot of emphasis on attempting to find solutions to a problem yourself first, before asking a question (and detailing what you've tried/explored already) to a community. With that mentality, it irks me when I see comments that don't seem to apply the same rigor to rhetorical discussions.

At the risk of being overtly snarky, could you really not conjure anyone that might have an opposing viewpoint?

starkrights2• 1 year ago

And fwiw, I also think the image is really cool. It's insane the world we've built, and imagining the context of all the math, physics, and human power of will that are behind those streaks of light is awesome.

But a negative viewpoint can't be that hard to see, right?

herewulf• 1 year ago

- Photographers / enthusiasts

Sorry, but the ship has sailed. Fix your problems in software maybe.

- Astronomers / enthusiasts

Every Starship launch should offer ride-share for a space based observatory. Astronomy will only improve with space based telescopes. Yes, spacecraft are expensive but so are Earth based observatories, but how does it look with launch cost removed from the equation?

- Those who enjoy nature

Generally can't see the satellites with the naked eye. Should probably concentrate on not walking into a hole / body of water / off a steep precipice.

This complaint about the aesthetics of the night sky is the wimpy enemy of progress. Imagine bronze / iron age people up in arms because suddenly the sea is full of fishing boats and merchant vessels. Or people up in arms because farmland has spoiled the view of forests.

Yes, I think this stuff looks nice without man-made things. I enjoy the night sky. I also enjoy being able to eat and utilize modern technology. There will come a day when spacecraft coming and going will be as routine as we see airplanes now, so our descendants will have that to complain about next, until it becomes as pointless to complain about as the asphalt roads that have lead to and from or houses.

Space based technology will make life better for all of humanity just like every technology that has come before it. The genie is out of the bottle and isn't going back in.

yellowapple• 1 year ago

Rozells’ composite visually echoes pleas from astronomers, who warn that although satellites collect essential data, the staggering amount filling our skies will only worsen light pollution and our ability to study what lies beyond. Because this industry has little regulation, the problem could go unchecked.

We have the technology to put observatories in orbit, where satellite "pollution", light pollution, atmospheric effects, etc. all become significantly less problematic. Maybe that should be our focus, rather than on shaming satellite constellations for doing essential work?

t0bia_s2• 1 year ago

Article with misleading conclusions.

Image is stacked from multiple images during sunset/sunrise when satellites are most visible because of sun position to observer. Photographer is in dark while satellites are lighted by direct sunlight.

During night, its barely visible.

An image of the Australian desert illuminates satellite pollution

Related Stories