[zelon88]

Part of the reason you don't see them more is because commercial satellite mega-constellations (like Starlink) work against long exposure times by literally clouding and brightening our view of space. (1)

1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09759-5

[dylan604]

Not really sure how this has anything to do with space based platforms like Chandra (which is x-ray) and Hubble which is well above Starlink. Also, Starlink is only a couple of years old to be problematic, but the ground based observatories have had clean skies for decades before.

This just really feels like someone trying to interject a pet peeve. Whether the peeve is valid or not, it's not the problem here.

[zelon88]

It's relevant because ground based satellites add observational capacity. If a ground based telescope can't get a good view, that's when you queue up Chandra or James Webb (Hubble is not the same type of telescope, and it's workload is not interchangeable).

Astronomers have thousands of interesting things they would like to point their telescopes at. There are thousands of capable ground stations that could take the easy targets, and only 2 x-ray satellites which should be used only for the highest value targets where absolute clarity and resolution is required. But if you start obstructing those ground stations, the workload must be taken over by just 2 satellites.

Ground stations are valued because they help solve the capacity planning problem. More usable telescopes === more observation time. Having more ground stations frees up the 2 satellite telescopes for truly stunning shots.

[ianburrell]

Hubble is actually the same altitude as Starlink, 340 mi. There have been proposals to boost Hubble to higher altitude so it doesn't reenter next decade.

But since Hubble doesn't look towards the Earth, it won't see as many as from Earth.