On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:26:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> Again, so what? A transient satellite passing through a binocular
>> field. Big deal. And if you're focused on one area, it's still going
>> to be minutes between events. These pose not threat to ordinary naked
>> eye viewing of the sky, no threat to telescopic observation, no threat
>> to the vast majority of imaging.
>
>It's not a single "transient" satellite (whatever the * you mean by "transient'") it's FIFTY satellites simultaneously visible in the field of a typical binocular. Most of the satellites will be brighter than most of the few dozen stars visible in the field.

That is an absurd claim.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:30:55 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:26:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Again, so what? A transient satellite passing through a binocular
> >> field. Big deal. And if you're focused on one area, it's still going
> >> to be minutes between events. These pose not threat to ordinary naked
> >> eye viewing of the sky, no threat to telescopic observation, no threat
> >> to the vast majority of imaging.
> >
> >It's not a single "transient" satellite (whatever the * you mean by "transient'") it's FIFTY satellites simultaneously visible in the field of a typical binocular. Most of the satellites will be brighter than most of the few dozen stars visible in the field.
> That is an absurd claim.

42,000 satellites mag 7 or brighter
42,000 stars mag 8 or brighter
(14,000 stars mag 7 or brighter)
41,253 square degrees of sky
Roughly one satellite for each square degree of sky
8-degree AFOV binocular has a field ~48 sq. degrees in area
7x35 binocular show stars down to mag 8 in light-polluted sky

Not "absurd" in the least!

Let's see your math.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
> There are valid concerns.

Then you need to shut your mouth, and let others, including many pro and amateur astronomers, discuss the matter without your annoying nonsense every time someone decides to discuss the topic. You add zero to the discussion.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
> There are valid concerns. But in the big scheme they are pretty small,
> and they are not the concerns you regularly voice here. The only
> significant professional astronomical impact is with a couple of wide
> field survey telescopes. There is no amateur impact at all.

Here, let me fix that for you... "There is no amateur impact that you consider important."
You need to shut up.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:06:04 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:30:55 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:26:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> Again, so what? A transient satellite passing through a binocular
>> >> field. Big deal. And if you're focused on one area, it's still going
>> >> to be minutes between events. These pose not threat to ordinary naked
>> >> eye viewing of the sky, no threat to telescopic observation, no threat
>> >> to the vast majority of imaging.
>> >
>> >It's not a single "transient" satellite (whatever the * you mean by "transient'") it's FIFTY satellites simultaneously visible in the field of a typical binocular. Most of the satellites will be brighter than most of the few dozen stars visible in the field.
>> That is an absurd claim.
>
>42,000 satellites mag 7 or brighter
>42,000 stars mag 8 or brighter
>(14,000 stars mag 7 or brighter)
>41,253 square degrees of sky
>Roughly one satellite for each square degree of sky
>8-degree AFOV binocular has a field ~48 sq. degrees in area
>7x35 binocular show stars down to mag 8 in light-polluted sky
>
>Not "absurd" in the least!
>
>Let's see your math.

The brightnesses are MAXIMUM. At most orientations and times they are
dimmer. The distribution is not uniform.

That said, even if there were 50, this is trivial in terms of public
policy. There is no significant harm from seeing some satellites in a
binocular view of the sky. And there is massive benefit to a worldwide
digital communications network.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:22:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:06:04 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:30:55 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:26:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> Again, so what? A transient satellite passing through a binocular
> >> >> field. Big deal. And if you're focused on one area, it's still going
> >> >> to be minutes between events. These pose not threat to ordinary naked
> >> >> eye viewing of the sky, no threat to telescopic observation, no threat
> >> >> to the vast majority of imaging.
> >> >
> >> >It's not a single "transient" satellite (whatever the * you mean by "transient'") it's FIFTY satellites simultaneously visible in the field of a typical binocular. Most of the satellites will be brighter than most of the few dozen stars visible in the field.
> >> That is an absurd claim.
> >
> >42,000 satellites mag 7 or brighter
> >42,000 stars mag 8 or brighter
> >(14,000 stars mag 7 or brighter)
> >41,253 square degrees of sky
> >Roughly one satellite for each square degree of sky
> >8-degree AFOV binocular has a field ~48 sq. degrees in area
> >7x35 binocular show stars down to mag 8 in light-polluted sky
> >
> >Not "absurd" in the least!
> >
> >Let's see your math.
> The brightnesses are MAXIMUM. At most orientations and times they are
> dimmer. The distribution is not uniform.

Mag 7 is the typical MINIMUM magnitude of the satellites. They are typically much brighter than that.
If you wish to be taken seriously, educate yourself on the facts. Otherwise shut up.

> That said, even if there were 50, this is trivial in terms of public
> policy. There is no significant harm from seeing some satellites in a
> binocular view of the sky. And there is massive benefit to a worldwide
> digital communications network.

That is simply an opinion based on your lack of experience. You even believe that Saturn's rings LOOK LIKE rings in a small binocular! You are truly a fool. Shut up.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
>> There are valid concerns. But in the big scheme they are pretty small,
>> and they are not the concerns you regularly voice here. The only
>> significant professional astronomical impact is with a couple of wide
>> field survey telescopes. There is no amateur impact at all.
>
>Here, let me fix that for you... "There is no amateur impact that you consider important."
>You need to shut up.

There is no amateur impact.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:36:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:22:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:06:04 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:30:55 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:26:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> Again, so what? A transient satellite passing through a binocular
>> >> >> field. Big deal. And if you're focused on one area, it's still going
>> >> >> to be minutes between events. These pose not threat to ordinary naked
>> >> >> eye viewing of the sky, no threat to telescopic observation, no threat
>> >> >> to the vast majority of imaging.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's not a single "transient" satellite (whatever the * you mean by "transient'") it's FIFTY satellites simultaneously visible in the field of a typical binocular. Most of the satellites will be brighter than most of the few dozen stars visible in the field.
>> >> That is an absurd claim.
>> >
>> >42,000 satellites mag 7 or brighter
>> >42,000 stars mag 8 or brighter
>> >(14,000 stars mag 7 or brighter)
>> >41,253 square degrees of sky
>> >Roughly one satellite for each square degree of sky
>> >8-degree AFOV binocular has a field ~48 sq. degrees in area
>> >7x35 binocular show stars down to mag 8 in light-polluted sky
>> >
>> >Not "absurd" in the least!
>> >
>> >Let's see your math.
>> The brightnesses are MAXIMUM. At most orientations and times they are
>> dimmer. The distribution is not uniform.
>
>Mag 7 is the typical MINIMUM magnitude of the satellites. They are typically much brighter than that.
>If you wish to be taken seriously, educate yourself on the facts. Otherwise shut up.

You are working with bad information.

>> That said, even if there were 50, this is trivial in terms of public
>> policy. There is no significant harm from seeing some satellites in a
>> binocular view of the sky. And there is massive benefit to a worldwide
>> digital communications network.
>
>That is simply an opinion based on your lack of experience. You even believe that Saturn's rings LOOK LIKE rings in a small binocular! You are truly a fool. Shut up.

At 8X you can see Saturn's rings. That you have poor vision is your
problem.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:52:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
> >> There are valid concerns. But in the big scheme they are pretty small,
> >> and they are not the concerns you regularly voice here. The only
> >> significant professional astronomical impact is with a couple of wide
> >> field survey telescopes. There is no amateur impact at all.
> >
> >Here, let me fix that for you... "There is no amateur impact that you consider important."
> >You need to shut up.
<
> There is no amateur impact.
<
So the fact that an amateur wanting to take astrophotography now has to
a) use shorter exposures,
b) throw more of them away,
c) and take many (many) more exposures,
d) stack more of those shorter exposures,
to get a good photo, is no impact.

I have to wonder what dictionary you are using for the definition of "no"

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-7, MitchAlsup wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:52:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
> > >> There are valid concerns. But in the big scheme they are pretty small,
> > >> and they are not the concerns you regularly voice here. The only
> > >> significant professional astronomical impact is with a couple of wide
> > >> field survey telescopes. There is no amateur impact at all.
> > >
> > >Here, let me fix that for you... "There is no amateur impact that you consider important."
> > >You need to shut up.
> <
> > There is no amateur impact.
> <
> So the fact that an amateur wanting to take astrophotography now has to
> a) use shorter exposures,
> b) throw more of them away,
> c) and take many (many) more exposures,
> d) stack more of those shorter exposures,
> to get a good photo, is no impact.
>
> I have to wonder what dictionary you are using for the definition of "no"

Or, the amateur astrophotographer simply needs to wait for a while after sunset for those satellites to completely disappear into Earth's shadow, which most of them do anyhow, and it business as usual!

You do understand this, right?

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 11:54:03 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:36:52 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:22:57 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:06:04 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:30:55 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 17:26:55 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> Again, so what? A transient satellite passing through a binocular
> >> >> >> field. Big deal. And if you're focused on one area, it's still going
> >> >> >> to be minutes between events. These pose not threat to ordinary naked
> >> >> >> eye viewing of the sky, no threat to telescopic observation, no threat
> >> >> >> to the vast majority of imaging.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It's not a single "transient" satellite (whatever the * you mean by "transient'") it's FIFTY satellites simultaneously visible in the field of a typical binocular. Most of the satellites will be brighter than most of the few dozen stars visible in the field.
> >> >> That is an absurd claim.
> >> >
> >> >42,000 satellites mag 7 or brighter
> >> >42,000 stars mag 8 or brighter
> >> >(14,000 stars mag 7 or brighter)
> >> >41,253 square degrees of sky
> >> >Roughly one satellite for each square degree of sky
> >> >8-degree AFOV binocular has a field ~48 sq. degrees in area
> >> >7x35 binocular show stars down to mag 8 in light-polluted sky
> >> >
> >> >Not "absurd" in the least!
> >> >
> >> >Let's see your math.
> >> The brightnesses are MAXIMUM. At most orientations and times they are
> >> dimmer. The distribution is not uniform.
> >
> >Mag 7 is the typical MINIMUM magnitude of the satellites. They are typically much brighter than that.
> >If you wish to be taken seriously, educate yourself on the facts. Otherwise shut up.
> You are working with bad information.

The information is fine. You just choose to ignore it.

> >> That said, even if there were 50, this is trivial in terms of public
> >> policy. There is no significant harm from seeing some satellites in a
> >> binocular view of the sky. And there is massive benefit to a worldwide
> >> digital communications network.
> >
> >That is simply an opinion based on your lack of experience. You even believe that Saturn's rings LOOK LIKE rings in a small binocular! You are truly a fool. Shut up.
> At 8X you can see Saturn's rings. That you have poor vision is your
> problem.

Actually, you can't see the rings at 8x. It is possible to detect an elongation in the image but not possible to determine the -reason- for the elongation. You are fooling yourself.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 11:19:48 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 7:00:55 PM UTC-7, MitchAlsup wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:52:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
> > > >> There are valid concerns. But in the big scheme they are pretty small,
> > > >> and they are not the concerns you regularly voice here. The only
> > > >> significant professional astronomical impact is with a couple of wide
> > > >> field survey telescopes. There is no amateur impact at all.
> > > >
> > > >Here, let me fix that for you... "There is no amateur impact that you consider important."
> > > >You need to shut up.
> > <
> > > There is no amateur impact.
> > <
> > So the fact that an amateur wanting to take astrophotography now has to
> > a) use shorter exposures,
> > b) throw more of them away,
> > c) and take many (many) more exposures,
> > d) stack more of those shorter exposures,
> > to get a good photo, is no impact.
> >
> > I have to wonder what dictionary you are using for the definition of "no"
> Or, the amateur astrophotographer simply needs to wait for a while after sunset for those satellites to completely disappear into Earth's shadow, which most of them do anyhow, and it business as usual!
>
> You do understand this, right?

The satellites don't "disappear" until very late in the evening and they re-appear hours before sunrise. That leaves very little time in the middle of the night for observing during summer at mid-to-high latitudes. That definitely has an impact on all astronomy, especially for amateurs who have normal schedules.

On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:00:54 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
<MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:52:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
>> >> There are valid concerns. But in the big scheme they are pretty small,
>> >> and they are not the concerns you regularly voice here. The only
>> >> significant professional astronomical impact is with a couple of wide
>> >> field survey telescopes. There is no amateur impact at all.
>> >
>> >Here, let me fix that for you... "There is no amateur impact that you consider important."
>> >You need to shut up.
><
>> There is no amateur impact.
><
>So the fact that an amateur wanting to take astrophotography now has to
>a) use shorter exposures,

Why?

>b) throw more of them away,

Why throw any away?

>c) and take many (many) more exposures,

Why take more exposures?

>d) stack more of those shorter exposures,

They need not be shorter, nor is there any reason to have more of
them.

So yes... no impact for imagers.

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021 at 7:50:24 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2021 19:00:54 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
> <Mitch...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 10:52:44 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 25 May 2021 07:13:20 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:29:58 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 24 May 2021 20:38:33 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >The only people who say that these satellites aren't are problem are those who stand to make money from them and their useful idiots such as you and peterson. Astronomers including those in the IAU have valid concerns about the situation. You are outnumbered and as usual out-classed. You are the a**-h***. But then we all know that.
> >> >> There are valid concerns. But in the big scheme they are pretty small,
> >> >> and they are not the concerns you regularly voice here. The only
> >> >> significant professional astronomical impact is with a couple of wide
> >> >> field survey telescopes. There is no amateur impact at all.
> >> >
> >> >Here, let me fix that for you... "There is no amateur impact that you consider important."
> >> >You need to shut up.
> ><
> >> There is no amateur impact.
> ><
> >So the fact that an amateur wanting to take astrophotography now has to
> >a) use shorter exposures,
> Why?
<
Because the satellites ruin the exposures.
<
> >b) throw more of them away,
> Why throw any away?
<
Because they want a image of what the sky looks like without the satellites
<
> >c) and take many (many) more exposures,
> Why take more exposures?
<
two things: the shorter exposure time due to perversity of satellites,
and having to throw away the images with satellites.
<
> >d) stack more of those shorter exposures,
> They need not be shorter, nor is there any reason to have more of
> them.
<
Astrophotos are not supposed to have long lines in them. A 30 minute
exposure (they way we used to do them; would now have hundreds of
these long lines.) thus you have to take short exposures in order to
avoid any satellite lines. Then because the exposures are short one
needs many (MANY) more exposures to achieve the same signal to
noise ratio of the fewer longer exposures. And to to[ this off, you many
have to throw more than ½ of them away due to satellite lines.
>
> So yes... no impact for imagers.
<
You must be on some kind of drugs.

On Fri, 28 May 2021 17:17:24 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
<MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:

>> >So the fact that an amateur wanting to take astrophotography now has to
>> >a) use shorter exposures,
>> Why?
><
>Because the satellites ruin the exposures.

They most certainly do not. Most subs have artifacts in them- planes,
satellites, cosmic ray hits. They're harmless, as they go away once
images are stacked.

>> >b) throw more of them away,
>> Why throw any away?
><
>Because they want a image of what the sky looks like without the satellites

Which is precisely what you get once several images are stacked.

>> >c) and take many (many) more exposures,
>> Why take more exposures?
><
>two things: the shorter exposure time due to perversity of satellites,
>and having to throw away the images with satellites.

As noted, there is no reason for shorter images, and no reason to
throw any away.

>> >d) stack more of those shorter exposures,
>> They need not be shorter, nor is there any reason to have more of
>> them.
><
>Astrophotos are not supposed to have long lines in them. A 30 minute
>exposure (they way we used to do them; would now have hundreds of
>these long lines.) thus you have to take short exposures in order to
>avoid any satellite lines. Then because the exposures are short one
>needs many (MANY) more exposures to achieve the same signal to
>noise ratio of the fewer longer exposures. And to to[ this off, you many
>have to throw more than ½ of them away due to satellite lines.

Most people don't shoot 30 minute subs anymore, because sensors have
such low readout noise that the sweet spot in terms of S/N,
considering readout noise and sky background noise is more typically
on the order of 10-20 minutes. Satellite tracks, plane tracks, cosmic
ray hits... these don't matter.

>> So yes... no impact for imagers.
><
>You must be on some kind of drugs.

You must not be an imager.

ALL RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
Mission success!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OneWebLaunch7 With 218 satellites in
orbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How that pretty picture horseshit® working out for you?
goddamn fucking pricks
"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
news:i8h3bgps2klt0onhvoc09t1te0lkn70fg9@4ax.com...

On Fri, 28 May 2021 17:17:24 -0700 (PDT), MitchAlsup
<MitchAlsup@aol.com> wrote:

>> >So the fact that an amateur wanting to take astrophotography now has to
>> >a) use shorter exposures,
>> Why?
><
>Because the satellites ruin the exposures.

They most certainly do not. Most subs have artifacts in them- planes,
satellites, cosmic ray hits. They're harmless, as they go away once
images are stacked.

>> >b) throw more of them away,
>> Why throw any away?
><
>Because they want a image of what the sky looks like without the satellites

Which is precisely what you get once several images are stacked.

>> >c) and take many (many) more exposures,
>> Why take more exposures?
><
>two things: the shorter exposure time due to perversity of satellites,
>and having to throw away the images with satellites.

As noted, there is no reason for shorter images, and no reason to
throw any away.

>> >d) stack more of those shorter exposures,
>> They need not be shorter, nor is there any reason to have more of
>> them.
><
>Astrophotos are not supposed to have long lines in them. A 30 minute
>exposure (they way we used to do them; would now have hundreds of
>these long lines.) thus you have to take short exposures in order to
>avoid any satellite lines. Then because the exposures are short one
>needs many (MANY) more exposures to achieve the same signal to
>noise ratio of the fewer longer exposures. And to to[ this off, you many
>have to throw more than ½ of them away due to satellite lines.

Most people don't shoot 30 minute subs anymore, because sensors have
such low readout noise that the sweet spot in terms of S/N,
considering readout noise and sky background noise is more typically
on the order of 10-20 minutes. Satellite tracks, plane tracks, cosmic
ray hits... these don't matter.

>> So yes... no impact for imagers.
><
>You must be on some kind of drugs.

You must not be an imager.

If you are not interested in astronomy or astrophotography, then why are you here?

HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Chicoms have just launched another massive spy satellite into
orbit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are they here yet, Blackface? You goddamn fucking pricks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"W" wrote in message
news:3e871acf-3626-4efe-a12e-81d3be6f4b77n@googlegroups.com...

If you are not interested in astronomy or astrophotography, then why are you
here?