Thank you so very, very much for talking about this important topic. Me and many astronomers and physicists are warning about this for years, not just because of astrophotography but also ground based observatories, the Kessler-effect and light pollution driving animals such as birds crazy. I find starlink and similar mass satellite groups from other companies to be the most dangerous and its only getting worse. We need national and international laws for this, similar to other things we have done such as the antarctic treaty. On a side note: "Get out there and shoot the sky!" It's been clouds for three weeks now :(
It is mind-boggling, when you look at the satellite trails just outside the primary atmosphere and realize how dense it is. Hopefully, you're skies get better. We just finished 39 straight days of rain here.
TL:DR We in the north are more effected by this than at the equator. Even though the map makes it look different, latitudes near 50° see the worst of it. The severity of satellite light pollution at 50° latitude is primarily due to the orbital inclinations of the satellites in megaconstellations. Here's why: 1. Orbital Inclinations and Coverage: Many satellite constellations are designed with orbital inclinations between 40° and 60° to maximize global coverage, particularly for populated regions in the mid-latitudes. At these inclinations, satellites frequently cross overhead at latitudes near 50°, leading to a higher density of satellites in the sky. 2. Prolonged Sunlight Visibility: During the summer months, at 50° latitude, the Sun does not dip far below the horizon, even at midnight. This means that satellites at these latitudes remain illuminated by sunlight for longer periods, making them visible all night long. 3. Orbital Caustics: Satellites often cluster along specific orbital paths due to the mechanics of inclined orbits, creating "caustics" or regions with higher satellite density. These regions are more pronounced around 50° latitude, increasing the number of visible satellites. 4. Geometric Shadowing Differences: At latitudes closer to the equator, Earth's shadow covers satellites more effectively during the night, limiting their visibility. At higher latitudes like 50°, this shadowing is less effective, especially in summer, leading to more visible, sunlit satellites. 5. Astronomical Observatories: Many observatories are located at mid-latitudes, amplifying the perceived impact as these sites experience the highest concentration of visible satellites during critical observing times. In summary, a combination of satellite design, orbit geometry, and prolonged twilight near the summer solstice makes 50° latitude a hotspot for satellite-induced light pollution.
@SKYST0RY I'd be happy to send you my paper, if you'd like. I also have one exploring Kessler Syndrome and potential mitigation strategies I could send.
Hi, Thanks for the video. They sould pay more attention to make the satelites less reflective.... if that is posible. I shoot also startrial photos, in a startrail photo you can't ditch a sub. So in Affinity Photo I have to check them all and take out all trails (satellite and airplaine) with the inpainting tool. Afther one of your videos I started paying more atention to the subs. Nowadays I check them all and take out the subs with heavy bright trails. The fainter ones I can live with, because I take the time that the sky is clear in considderation also. I take 180 sec subs, but I'll give 60 sec a go one time. Not sure if my 10 year old computer likes it ;)
The strategy your using should work well, as long as the satellite trail isn't too bright. I am hearing really good things about Frank's satellite removal tool in the Seti Astro suite, too. It might save you some work.
@@robvandenwijngaart1970 there are proposed mitigation measures, including non-reflective paint. That should help us astrophotographers, but even non-reflective satellites pose a significant problem when it comes to radio astronomy and real research.
I accidentally learned something from your video. I thought the light that you gather with your subs was accumulative and I didn’t know how to prevent blowing out bright objects like M42. I am definitely going to try shorter subs. Rumor has it that Santa is delivering me an Askar 65 PHQ with the 0.75 Reducer Christmas Eve. Sounds like he was listening to me when I asked for a scope that could deliver pin-sharp stars.😂
It's worth mentioning that LEO satellites are primarily only visible after sunset and in the pre-dawn. Between these periods, especially in the winter, the satellites are in the Earth's shadow and don't show up. This doesn't happen for geostationary satellites, or those with significantly elliptical orbits (high-polar for example).
Although this earthborn waste might remain in orbit as part of the system millions of years after us, it probably wouldn’t last that long in terms of the star system itself.
I don’t agree with culling the subs. I also think you should give Frank’s script a try and see what the results are. Sure, it is altering the data. But only for that sub, and also only a few pixels. If you have 599 subs that say a pixel value is 500 +\- 10 and one sub that says else-wise, then it will either be rejected, weighted differently, or averaged. One pixel of 600 that is an outlier will not upset the likely true mean of the value. Calling data pristine from our vantage point doesn’t make a whole lot of sense anyway. There are so many factors that can change a pixel value even over the course of an evening. Why not gain the benefit of the other 9 million pixels on your sensor that do have accurate data?
I get where you're coming from, but long experience has taught me not to be information-greedy. Better to discard than let bad data in. That old saying, "One bad apple spoils the barrel", holds true so often. As shown in the video, of the 9 satellite trails recorded in the data of the globular cluster, 4 satellite trails survived stacking and were embedded into the final image. Those aberrations can be removed in various ways, such as inpainting, but the further the information is pushed in developing, the more any little flaw will stand out. Frank's solution in Cosmic Clarity is probably the most elegant but I haven't tested it yet. I'll try to get around to it sometime when information collection slows down. But for now, I'll keep using my method which has proven to give the best results. This morning, out of 388 subs, I only removed 9 due to stacking. That's not even 3%. After aggressive culling in SFS, another 30% of the subs were purged. SFS culling is far more brutal than just nixing a few satellite-scarred subs. I ended up with less data but better quality data. I'll always choose quality over quantity.
Why would you cull your subs, that's a monumental waste of time. At the absolute worst case scenario, just paint the trails pure black and reject black in your stacking workflow. Or do you just cull them because it's less tedious? To each their own I guess, I'm not willing to waste that data if it's good.
Most of my images will be made of between 1200 and 2400 subs. And given how short my subs are, it's no big deal dropping a few due to satellites. Though, whether I cull will depend on where the trails are. if they fall right over a subject of interest, I'll drop the sub. If the trails are near the edge of the image, I might leave some in. However, Frank's near satellite trail removal tool might change this. I haven't tested it out yet.
@@SKYST0RY Well I was speaking from a game script point of view, I mean not necessarily it exactly, but just drawing them out and not stacking that trail works great. Then again I don't take 2k subs :) If you're taking that many exposures, can't you just use a more aggressive sigma?
I just wrote a research paper on this topic. The research was truly saddening.
Thank you so very, very much for talking about this important topic. Me and many astronomers and physicists are warning about this for years, not just because of astrophotography but also ground based observatories, the Kessler-effect and light pollution driving animals such as birds crazy. I find starlink and similar mass satellite groups from other companies to be the most dangerous and its only getting worse. We need national and international laws for this, similar to other things we have done such as the antarctic treaty.
On a side note: "Get out there and shoot the sky!" It's been clouds for three weeks now :(
It is mind-boggling, when you look at the satellite trails just outside the primary atmosphere and realize how dense it is. Hopefully, you're skies get better. We just finished 39 straight days of rain here.
That is why I have the clip to black option. That way WBPP will just completely ignore that pixel. Your data will not be polluted.
Where is the option you are referring to, Frank? I can't find it.
@@SKYST0RY it says Clip trail to 0.000. Be sure you have the latest and greatest. There were new models for all of cosmic clarity last week.
TL:DR We in the north are more effected by this than at the equator.
Even though the map makes it look different, latitudes near 50° see the worst of it. The severity of satellite light pollution at 50° latitude is primarily due to the orbital inclinations of the satellites in megaconstellations. Here's why:
1. Orbital Inclinations and Coverage: Many satellite constellations are designed with orbital inclinations between 40° and 60° to maximize global coverage, particularly for populated regions in the mid-latitudes. At these inclinations, satellites frequently cross overhead at latitudes near 50°, leading to a higher density of satellites in the sky.
2. Prolonged Sunlight Visibility: During the summer months, at 50° latitude, the Sun does not dip far below the horizon, even at midnight. This means that satellites at these latitudes remain illuminated by sunlight for longer periods, making them visible all night long.
3. Orbital Caustics: Satellites often cluster along specific orbital paths due to the mechanics of inclined orbits, creating "caustics" or regions with higher satellite density. These regions are more pronounced around 50° latitude, increasing the number of visible satellites.
4. Geometric Shadowing Differences: At latitudes closer to the equator, Earth's shadow covers satellites more effectively during the night, limiting their visibility. At higher latitudes like 50°, this shadowing is less effective, especially in summer, leading to more visible, sunlit satellites.
5. Astronomical Observatories: Many observatories are located at mid-latitudes, amplifying the perceived impact as these sites experience the highest concentration of visible satellites during critical observing times.
In summary, a combination of satellite design, orbit geometry, and prolonged twilight near the summer solstice makes 50° latitude a hotspot for satellite-induced light pollution.
Good points. I wish I had had a chance to consult with you first. Seems like it might be a good idea to do a follow up video some time.
@SKYST0RY I'd be happy to send you my paper, if you'd like. I also have one exploring Kessler Syndrome and potential mitigation strategies I could send.
Hi, Thanks for the video. They sould pay more attention to make the satelites less reflective.... if that is posible. I shoot also startrial photos, in a startrail photo you can't ditch a sub. So in Affinity Photo I have to check them all and take out all trails (satellite and airplaine) with the inpainting tool. Afther one of your videos I started paying more atention to the subs. Nowadays I check them all and take out the subs with heavy bright trails. The fainter ones I can live with, because I take the time that the sky is clear in considderation also. I take 180 sec subs, but I'll give 60 sec a go one time. Not sure if my 10 year old computer likes it ;)
The strategy your using should work well, as long as the satellite trail isn't too bright. I am hearing really good things about Frank's satellite removal tool in the Seti Astro suite, too. It might save you some work.
@@robvandenwijngaart1970 there are proposed mitigation measures, including non-reflective paint. That should help us astrophotographers, but even non-reflective satellites pose a significant problem when it comes to radio astronomy and real research.
I accidentally learned something from your video. I thought the light that you gather with your subs was accumulative and I didn’t know how to prevent blowing out bright objects like M42. I am definitely going to try shorter subs. Rumor has it that Santa is delivering me an Askar 65 PHQ with the 0.75 Reducer Christmas Eve. Sounds like he was listening to me when I asked for a scope that could deliver pin-sharp stars.😂
I just use the default average to add in light. That's a nice scope. A quintuplet, right?
@ Yes, with two ED lenses. It is a native 416mm at F/6.4 and should be perfect scope for my SA GTI mount.
It's worth mentioning that LEO satellites are primarily only visible after sunset and in the pre-dawn. Between these periods, especially in the winter, the satellites are in the Earth's shadow and don't show up.
This doesn't happen for geostationary satellites, or those with significantly elliptical orbits (high-polar for example).
Although this earthborn waste might remain in orbit as part of the system millions of years after us, it probably wouldn’t last that long in terms of the star system itself.
✌✌
Boycott the Chinese government and Elon musk and everyone else throwing up junk into our beautiful sky
Agree. Isn't it odd that most serious (astro-)physicists warn about things such as the kessler-effect for many years already yet people praise musk?
I don’t agree with culling the subs. I also think you should give Frank’s script a try and see what the results are. Sure, it is altering the data. But only for that sub, and also only a few pixels. If you have 599 subs that say a pixel value is 500 +\- 10 and one sub that says else-wise, then it will either be rejected, weighted differently, or averaged. One pixel of 600 that is an outlier will not upset the likely true mean of the value. Calling data pristine from our vantage point doesn’t make a whole lot of sense anyway. There are so many factors that can change a pixel value even over the course of an evening. Why not gain the benefit of the other 9 million pixels on your sensor that do have accurate data?
I get where you're coming from, but long experience has taught me not to be information-greedy. Better to discard than let bad data in. That old saying, "One bad apple spoils the barrel", holds true so often. As shown in the video, of the 9 satellite trails recorded in the data of the globular cluster, 4 satellite trails survived stacking and were embedded into the final image. Those aberrations can be removed in various ways, such as inpainting, but the further the information is pushed in developing, the more any little flaw will stand out. Frank's solution in Cosmic Clarity is probably the most elegant but I haven't tested it yet. I'll try to get around to it sometime when information collection slows down. But for now, I'll keep using my method which has proven to give the best results. This morning, out of 388 subs, I only removed 9 due to stacking. That's not even 3%. After aggressive culling in SFS, another 30% of the subs were purged. SFS culling is far more brutal than just nixing a few satellite-scarred subs. I ended up with less data but better quality data. I'll always choose quality over quantity.
Why would you cull your subs, that's a monumental waste of time. At the absolute worst case scenario, just paint the trails pure black and reject black in your stacking workflow. Or do you just cull them because it's less tedious? To each their own I guess, I'm not willing to waste that data if it's good.
Most of my images will be made of between 1200 and 2400 subs. And given how short my subs are, it's no big deal dropping a few due to satellites. Though, whether I cull will depend on where the trails are. if they fall right over a subject of interest, I'll drop the sub. If the trails are near the edge of the image, I might leave some in. However, Frank's near satellite trail removal tool might change this. I haven't tested it out yet.
@@SKYST0RY Well I was speaking from a game script point of view, I mean not necessarily it exactly, but just drawing them out and not stacking that trail works great. Then again I don't take 2k subs :) If you're taking that many exposures, can't you just use a more aggressive sigma?