| Is Starlink affecting your imaging? | |
|---|---|
| Yes | |
| No | |
| Login to vote and view results. |
1.43
...
·
 |
|---|
| I've been trying to capture the Orion Nebula and I'm getting Starlink streaks in more than 90% of my subs from my location in Huntington Beach California. It literally is a constant stream of satellites cutting across Orion. This is happening during ALL hours that it is visible in my location. Just wanted to see if others are having the same experience. Given that this is early days for Starlink and its competitors, I can only imagine what the night sky will look like in a couple years... |
4.07
...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
| In my experience, rejection algorithms are effective against satellite trails, however numerous. There needs to be a sufficient number of frames for it to work, though. |
8.42
...
·
·
7
likes
|
|---|
|
Get enough subs, after stacking the problem is gone in my experience. Not nearly as big an issue as the sudden and rapid growth in LP due to the switch to LED lighting, or the change in weather that for the past 5 years made september to januari a complete shitshow with maybe 1 or 2 clear nights. I do feel for the pro astronomers tough, they have a tougher time with Starlink than we do. |
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
|
Over the past couple of nights, I've noticed a train of starlink satellites crossing through the sky. However, this would maybe ruin a single 5 minute sub and then I see no more starlink satellites, so it's just the other satellites and plane trails through my subs but at different locations. If you dither at appropriate intervals and take multiple subs, then pixel rejection algorithms will take out rogue satellite trails. If you have the same pattern in the same position through all your subs, then you'll have to manually erase these. |
5.93
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
|
Norman, the prominent satellite-trail right accross the Orion-nebula existed long before Starlink was initiated. So this is not particularly Starlink-related. No rejection mechanism in stacking will clean your data perfectly, because this is a true satellite-highway! You can eliminate these trails by doing a second stack of your data, this time only stacking the frames without satellite trails. With this clean image you can then edit out the trail in your original image, using masks. Maybe you have to apply a bit more noise-reduction to this clean image... Hope, this helps - CS! Chris PS: On the original question - no, I have not noticed more satellite trails in my frames since Starlink was established. |
1.20
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
In my last photo of the angel nebula I have satellite stripes in practically 100% of the light, in the sum of pixinsight with the large scale pixel rejection setting i solved. |
3.01
...
·
|
|---|
| @masluigi - the large scale pixel rejection checkbox worked for me as well. However, I'm wondering how anyone was able to get the Local Normalization step to work. I had to manually step through hundreds of frames to pick only about a couple that didn't have a trail going right through the interesting parts. There's no large scale rejection option for that step and the final stack of the normalization generation leaves a trail since there aren't many frames to choose from or select a rejection option. (?) I manually picked the least of the offenders, cleaned up the trail that was left in the empty sky section from the ones I picked and used that as my normalization frame. Wondering if anyone else has a better way that they have used. Thanks! |
4.69
...
·
|
|---|
Norman Tajudin: I wouldn't worry about it. I never delete a sub with a satellite in it. If you are a Pixinsight user, you can get WBPP to run a cosmetic correction. Works fine. |
1.20
...
·
|
|---|
| Fortunately starlink satellites are very dim and almost invisible to us. Any satellites that appear are easily removed with rejection algorithms, but an airplane requires the sub to be removed from the stack. |
11.80
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
| I see satellites in my subs all the time, even many years before Starlink exists. So my answer to OP's question is no. My astrophotography is not ruined by satellites, let alone Starlink. |
|
11.80
...
·
·
4
likes
|
|---|
Norman Tajudin: Orion is on the well known "satellite highway." What you describe existed years before there is Starlink. You can blame the statellites, but they are not Starlink. |
19.38
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I have found no issues with it as the pixel rejection algorithms in PI and APP have taken care of anything I’ve had sat trails in. I did some testing on m42 a week ago to adjust my FR and run the data thru and everything come out just fine in the integrated image. I will say like others mentioned you do need to have a good number of subs for the rejection algorithms to work properly. Dale |
7.14
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
Christian Koll: For sure, having done this for decades, I noted that as far back as the 1990s. Orion is in the geostationary satellite arc for TV sats, com sats and the like. These are often large and drift slowly across the frame (basically anti-sidereal) so can make a decent impression on an image. Not a fan of Musk or his sky garbage but these are not those. |
3.61
...
·
|
|---|
|
Starlink are not geostationary so their impact on any one or more of our images is essentially completely random. Many (most?) geostationary satellites lie very close to 0 degrees declination so all of those (and there are MANY of them) are likely to pass through any imaging attempts in the Orion area. Just have to deal with them in the various ways posted in this thread. Clear, satellite free skies, Jeff |
3.81
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
|
Guess it is better to just accept what you can't change. As much as I love astro, I wish that we will become a space exploring civilization and part of that is that our stuff is up there. https://www.astrobin.com/2k72ey/  this is a picture that shows all the typical stuff that moves in the night sky while I image. after stacking there is nothing visible anymore, so I would say it is no problem for me. cs Andi |
9.63
...
·
|
|---|
Norman Tajudin: Sigma rejection in WBPP is your answer. You shouldn't need to reject a single sub provided you've built up enough subs for rejection to work in the first place. Same goes for planes. that being said, starlink streaks are NOT occupying 90% of your subs. When you're near the equator you are imaging through the geosync belt, that is the area where all the geostationary satellites hang out. They aren't coated in special paints like starlink sats are. They're bright, they never cared about us when they put those things in orbit decades ago lol. Also, interestingly enough, they are not moving... you are. Another fun fact about that area, at least in MY experience is it's asteroid city. Tons of asteroids creep through my frame every time I image in Orion constellation. It's the astro equivalent of a freeway. Still never rejected subs for objects. |
|
1.43
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Wow, appreciate all of the responses and tips. I guess as Andi says, "better to accept what you can't change" and figure the work arounds. I haven't imaged Orion in a long time so perhaps I've forgotten about the volume of satellites crossing over it and immediately assumed it was starlink. It is amazing the number of satellites moving over that target though. I took over 100 short subs last night in each RGB channel and I would say that most of them have a satellite streak in them. Thanks again for all of the feedback. It was like a therapy session reading through them.  |
0.00
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Short answer, no. I do get them in my frames, sometimes a lot, but the stacking process completely eliminates them, so its a non-issue. SpaceX has worked really hard to minimize the magnitude and make them as non-visible as possible. I'm not worried about them at all at this point. I have poor internet in my area and use Starlink myself, I wouldn't be supporting a company if it was harming my hobby. |
11.97
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Norman Tajudin: Are you sure that these are Starlink trails? The area around Orion was well known for satellite trails long before Starlink. See this APOD https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210601.html |
|
7.14
...
·
|
|---|
Brian Puhl: Well, yes - but WBPP is not really needed. Sigma (and it's variants like ESD) is really a part of image integration which itself is part of WBPP. Sigma rejection, along with dithering and other noise and artifact rejection methods, has been a part of imaging for decades, long before WBPP or even Pixinsight existed. |
10.16
...
·
·
2
likes
|
|---|
Anderl: What a great picture! To my eye it looks a bit like the Nazca Lines. Maybe these lines are an projection of an ancient satellite problem, too? ;-) |
|
9.63
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bill McLaughlin:Brian Puhl: You're right, I was simply assuming he's using WBPP. |
|
7.14
...
·
·
3
likes
|
|---|
You're right, I was simply assuming he's using WBPP. Reasonable assumption since most people do. I am one of the few who still do each pre-processing step "manually". WBPP is just a bit too much of a "black box" for my old school tastes  |
|
3.61
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bill McLaughlin:You're right, I was simply assuming he's using WBPP. Well you have certainly earned the right to do things however you see fit.  The results clearly speak for themselves. I have always admired your work.CS, Jeff |
|
9.63
...
·
·
1
like
|
|---|
Bill McLaughlin:You're right, I was simply assuming he's using WBPP. Heard that. I'm only using WBPP for calibration and registration now, manually stacking the data otherwise so I can take full advantage of my two scopes. WBPP as far as I can tell won't combine the data between the two by itself. |
