https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2001.10952/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22502875urn:hackerpapers:mention:2001.10952:22502875Fri, 06 Mar 2020 11:51:57 GMT<p>Trump??? Is that a new Godwin point??? I suggest you read this article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.10952.pdf As you can read there it will threaten our ability to detect dangerous objects. As well as other things. We have optical fibers, common! Do you need to have Netflix in 8K on top of Kilimanjaro? The issues I have with mars are: 1) the sheer scale of the project(s) (earth has limited ressources) 2) the lack of scientific framework 3) the arguments that it will be useful for survival 4) the very idea of people fleeing earth in time of major existential problems (climate &amp; biodiversity) So…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2001.10952/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>astro-ph.IMhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22188919urn:hackerpapers:mention:2001.10952:22188919Thu, 30 Jan 2020 04:48:01 GMT<p>This landed earlier today. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10952 tl;dr: starlink and its competitors pose serious Earth-based observation problems across the spectrum (§§4.1-4.2) especially for faint variable objects which require long exposures and for which any missed pixels matter. The missed-pixels problems run around the clock, not just when the sattelites are visibly flaring, as do non-visible-spectrum noise problems.</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2001.10952/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>astro-ph.IM