6 ms·

Let me pose this unfair question back at you. Are you willing to pay the price for providing an alternate means of sky observation at a scale suitable for astro

Let me pose this unfair question back at you. Are you willing to pay the price for providing an alternate means of sky observation at a scale suitable for astronomy, and for cleaning up the debris that might result from expiration of, or collisions between, tens of thousands of commercial satellites? You are implying that launching many commercial (American) satellites is the best, or even a good, solution to the problem of many people not having what you consider adequate internet. Moreover, apparently this problem is so urgent and the solution so perfect that you feel the need to chastise these scientists for even expressing concern. I don't think you are approaching this discussion in a fair manner.

Ajedi32 7y ago
> and for cleaning up the debris that might result from expiration of, or collisions between, tens of thousands of commercial satellites FWIW, at the altitudes Starlink operates at, that completely hypothetical scenario would only take a few years to remedy, and would cost $0 as the debris naturally de-orbits due to atmospheric drag.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> Are you willing to pay the price for providing an alternate means of sky observation at a scale suitable for astronomy, and for cleaning up the debris that might result from expiration of, or collisions between, tens of thousands of commercial satellites? SpaceX is literally spearheading both technologies and business models required to do exactly that, and Starlink is critical to this as a source of funding.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>Are you willing to pay the price for providing an alternate means of sky observation at a scale suitable for astronomy, and for cleaning up the debris that might result from expiration of, or collisions between, tens of thousands of commercial satellites? I feel there is an implication that being able to observe the sky, and specifically the extent this is degraded, is comparable to the extent one is excluded from modern society without a fast internet connection. >not having what you consider adequate internet. I would think all the students who are unable to complete school assignments due to lack of internet access, sometimes with web pages outright failing to load over dial-up, would be the one's whose considerations of adequate internet we need to rest our judgments upon. One might say that a school shouldn't engage in having such an unfair requirement, but then that would mean limiting tools accessible to other students and to teachers. >for even expressing concern From the article: >and calling for regulation >I don't think you are approaching this discussion in a fair manner. I feel a standard of fairness is being applied in a manner most unbefitting itself.

Ajedi32 7y ago

> and for cleaning up the debris that might result from expiration of, or collisions between, tens of thousands of commercial satellites FWIW, at the altitudes Starlink operates at, that completely hypothetical scenario would only take a few years to remedy, and would cost $0 as the debris naturally de-orbits due to atmospheric drag.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

SkyBelow 7y ago

>Are you willing to pay the price for providing an alternate means of sky observation at a scale suitable for astronomy, and for cleaning up the debris that might result from expiration of, or collisions between, tens of thousands of commercial satellites? I feel there is an implication that being able to observe the sky, and specifically the extent this is degraded, is comparable to the extent one is excluded from modern society without a fast internet connection. >not having what you consider adequate internet. I would think all the students who are unable to complete school assignments due to lack of internet access, sometimes with web pages outright failing to load over dial-up, would be the one's whose considerations of adequate internet we need to rest our judgments upon. One might say that a school shouldn't engage in having such an unfair requirement, but then that would mean limiting tools accessible to other students and to teachers. >for even expressing concern From the article: >and calling for regulation >I don't think you are approaching this discussion in a fair manner. I feel a standard of fairness is being applied in a manner most unbefitting itself.