Surely an astronomer would have software for this that would produce a more accurate picture.

So, they would erase the stars, but only to create a satellite mask, generally speaking.

It then usually gives you an image of both the combined success, and an image of just those pixels that were rejected. So, this.

The misleading part is that readers don’t see that it’s provocative art until you carefully read the details. It’s presented like documentary evidence of what the problem looks like.

The photographer might not have intended it this way, but the writers of this post took advantage of that.

The misleading part is where he edited out the stars by hand.

> Much of the time was spent painstakingly erasing stars, to reveal the satellites.

The photographer wasn’t misleading. He made a cool photo. The headline is misleading.

> Much of the time was spent painstakingly erasing stars, to reveal the satellites.

These aren’t my words. It’s what the article says!

The final image appears to have a frame of stars added for effect, but they are dots rather than arcs because they’re from a single exposure. The satellite trails are a composite of all of the images, with the stars removed.

The headline is the worst offender, saying that the skies are “choked” with satellites.

The headline is misleading. The photo alone is interesting with the right context.

But the framing from others is terrible. "Who gave anyone permission do this?" Um, every single satellite ever launched has gone through government approvals. Sorry if you didn't start paying attention to the world of space flight until it ruined your attempt at photography, but that's on you.

This isn't some nefarious plot to manipulate the market or irradiate all the gold in Fort Knox or something. That scare-quoted "money" comes from providing useful services to people who want to pay for them. Yes, it turns out that millions of people wanting high-speed communication for their rural homes trumps people who get angry that they have to run their astrophotography through some software.

I don't understand what people actually want to happen here. Part of living on a planet with eight billion other people is dealing with the fact that some of them are going to do things you don't like. Governments, treaties, and international organizations are how we manage it. I understand if people disagree with the specific process that's in place for these things, or disagree with the decisions that get made, but they're acting like there isn't any process, or they somehow deserve to be personally consulted as part of it.

I 100% agree that there's a problem of money putting a thumb on the scale. But I don't understand why that would even be relevant here. As far a I've seen (I'm not an expert but I have been following SpaceX since before they put anything into orbit) there has been no undue political influence in getting Starlink authorization to launch their constellation. We live in a system where things are permitted by default. There's no reason for the FAA or the FCC or whatever other regulatory bodies to deny it. Musk is gleefully using his money to put his thumb on the scale in other areas (spending nine figures in the recent elections is obscene) but why would he even have bothered here?

As it clearly affects the whole world there should be some kind of international body governing it IMO. But I doubt that will happen because most nations are instead racing to get similar swarms of satellites up.

Both can't be non-misleading right?

The purpose of stacking hundreds of photos is to get rid of noise and unwanted trails like this.

The effort involved here is to go out of your way to do the exact opposite, specifically make sure things that are in a single exposure show up in the stack.

You stack photos to enhance clarity and remove noise. Your work is not "mendacious".

But what you are removing is still data - and as you can see, some people find it to be very interesting.

You can make data say anything by doing that.

In this case, it seems like a desired noise was selectively amplified above signal level to portray an artificially low signal-to-noise ratio, with the article concluding "look at all this noise!"

The image in the original post is not too far from what you get with an actual telescope.