I doubt they will elevate their orbit by enough to be a problem. Some bits will come down in hours, some will come down in a year - even in the worst case where it takes out everything in low earth orbit in 5 years everything will be clear and we can start over. Higher orbits are the real worry, even the things slowed down mostly stay in orbit for centuries - but higher orbits are mostly a lot higher.

If you blow up a satellite, half of it will end up going slower and half will go faster. The slower bits will probably burn up nicely, but the faster bits will just elevate their orbit.

I fear this is only the start of it. A minimum of 3-4 constellations more will probably be launched in the near future (Russia, China, EU).Their obvious dual-use nature makes them tempting, and a military target if a large conflict will take place in the near future. I hope their lower orbit will help any space junk burn up fast.

Opinion: We need to move our astronomical observation equipment off of Earth and onto other bodies, especially radio astronomy, which, unlike telescopes that operate in other wavelengths, is still affected by Earth&#x27;s emissions in LEO&#x2F;near-Earth space. We should put a radio telescope on the far side of the moon [0] to benefit from the thousands of kilometers of lunar material separating Earth&#x27;s emissions from telescopes.[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1109&#x2F;AERO50100.2021.9438165" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1109&#x2F;AERO50100.2021.9438165</a>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lunar_Crater_Radio_Telescope" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lunar_Crater_Radio_Telescope</a>

And this is just the visible spectrum.The situation is one order of magnitude worst in radio-astronomy.It is fair to state that satellite constellations will certainly be the main obstacle to multiple major scientific discoveries in the next decade.

Yeah, I kinda get why astronomers are not particularly happy with satellite constellations.

My guess is the camera itself was taking photos of shorter exposure and the final image was composed in post-production, yes.

I&#x27;ve taken long exposures using film (analog, so no stacking or any other funny business) and saw the same thing. I always thought they were planes but now it seems they may have been satellites. I&#x27;m curious if someone knows why this happens

I&#x27;m not aware of a digital camera that can take a 10 minute continuous exposure, but maybe there are special astronomy cameras that can?

Maybe, but also a lot of satellites rotate and so their brightness changes over time.

Why are satellite trails not continuous linesIs the camera exposure taking a few seconds of break between takes that get stacked later with some &quot;missing&quot; moments in between?

I&#x27;m rebuilding my RSS feed collection, and having pretty astronomy pictures is a fine addition. Thanks!

So cool! Zoom in to find out: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;zoomhub.net&#x2F;0w8pN" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;zoomhub.net&#x2F;0w8pN</a>

It&#x27;s a set of network satellites for sure either by Eutelsat or Starlink in 70:20 ratio 10% being other providersBut all of them being LEO for sure.

if i could imagine what a Sophon from 3 body problem would look like. this is kind of it.

Hot take: We&#x27;re in the first stages of building our own Dyson sphere and therefore comets are only useful in the context of capturing them for that purpose.;)

Can You Find the Comet?