Remix.run Logo
oofbey 2 days ago

Exactly. It’s not that hard to remove the satellites. It’s almost easier than whining about it. But whining is more fun.

adrian_b a day ago | parent [-]

It is not hard to remove the satellites, but that is not free.

It reduces the signal-to-noise ratio of the image, making more difficult the detection of faint objects.

MarkusQ a day ago | parent | next [-]

It _increases_ the signal to noise ratio. It's a denoising technique, and that's what they do.

Compared to the processing already done to get data from astronomical data, yeah, it's essentially free.

oofbey a day ago | parent | prev [-]

True. But that’s never the framing you hear from astronomers. It’s how the satellites are “ruining” the pictures, like this whole thread.

The SNR degradation isn’t even very much. Noise goes down by 1/sqrt(N) samples. In a stack like this might have 5-40 images depending on how they did it. Typically a satellite will only show up on one of those images for a given pixel. So by excluding that image from the stack that pixel’s noise would go up by a ratio of sqrt(N/(N-1)) which for 5-40 images is between 12% more noise and 1% more noise. Only the pixels with satellite tracks.

True there’s more noise if you remove the satellites. But it’s probably only a few percent noisier, and only in the places where the satellite flew. Add a few more images to the stack and accept that the world is changing.