Satellite constellations can ruin up to 96% of astronomical images, even from space-based telescopes

There has been a lot of concern lately about the extent to which these newfangled satellite constellations will ruin ground-based astronomy. Passing satellites leave trails of light pollution on an observatory’s long-exposure image of space; While it used to be possible to wait for someone to pass through, the sheer number of satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) now makes that increasingly difficult. Don’t worry, because it turns out to be worse than we thought. According to a new study from NASA, these constellations will also have an influence room-based telescopes, such as Hubble, among others.

That couldn’t be so That bad, could that be? It could be. NASA’s report, published in Naturepredicts that about 40% of all Hubble images will contain at least one satellite stripe. That’s not even half (literally), as the report predicts that three other space telescopes would experience a 96% contamination rate, rendering these expensive and brilliant machines virtually useless. That would be a disaster for astronomy. It’s quite difficult to pierce the veil of heaven when the image looks worse than an old 8mm film strip.

Clearly, all this puts the ground-based observatories in an even worse position. The brand new Vera C. Rubin Observatory is one of the most powerful cameras ever built; In its first year, the telescope aims to collect more data than every other telescope in history combined. That astonishing feat is in jeopardy: NASA’s research shows that even if the total number of satellites remains below 50,000, it will still ruin up to 80% of Rubin’s photos. And unlike his space-based brethren, Rubin cannot move.

The report ends by repeating some previously published solutions to the problem, although implementation is still some way off. But as more and more beloved space images become contaminated, public pressure may increase to implement some of them. Vantablack paint on satellites? It would help! But even that in itself is not enough. The worst-case scenario would be that only the distant James Webb Space Telescope, far beyond LEO, would be able to take consistently useful images.