5 ms·
This is utterly, utterly overblown. The Space Station is thousands of times bigger and throws back a hundred times more light than this will. Every evening, f
by danielvf 9y ago
This is utterly, utterly overblown.
The Space Station is thousands of times bigger and throws back a hundred times more light than this will.
Every evening, for most of the populated world, dozens of brighter satellites than this go overhead. I just checked the orbits for my evening here - 57 brighter satellites.
But what about the flashing? Well, we've got those already too. The old, awesome Iridium satellites have giant antennas that act like mirrors. When one beams the sun onto you at night for a few seconds, it's hundreds of times brighter than the Humanity Star. The Hitomi, a failed Japanese weather satellite, flashes every second or so as it spins - again, much brighter than this will ever be.
And worries about Kessler syndrome for this object in a very low earth orbit? Even if every satellite in similar orbit magically exploded tomorrow, the debris would be gone in less than year. In the meantime we could still launch to other orbits. Kessler syndrome is overhyped in general, and a complete non-issue this low.
- api 9y agoIt's the precedent. We do not want space based ads.
- Androider 9y agoDo you want space colonies, commercial stations and activity? Cause I don't think you'll get one without the other.
- paulsutter 9y agoRemember how ads were disallowed on the internet, as a sort of gentleman’s agreement? Didn’t last long
- yAnonymous 9y agoNo. It's good to criticize this now, before everyone starts doing it. I really don't want ad banners in the sky twenty years from now.
- chimmy_chonga 9y agoThose served an actual purpose though. They weren't just shoved into space just to say, "hey look at what we did". That's the point they're making. Don't pollute space just because you can. EDIT: typos
- rbanffy 9y agoThis also serves a purpose - there had to be a payload to properly test the rocket. It'll come down in 9 months or so. Also, from LEO, it's not that visible.
- anotheryou 9y agoOne could argue: this one gets press, which gets funding, which is quite important for science.
- chimmy_chonga 9y agothat's a good point
- wodenokoto 9y ago> It is expected to become the brightest object in the night sky for nine months until it re-enters Earth’s atmosphere. That sounds like a pretty big deal to me.
- danielvf 9y agoThere’s no way it’s true though. It’s simply not big enough.
- clarkenheim 9y agoHow did you "check the orbits for your evening"? just curious, i would like to check my own from time to time and have a look on a clear night. If it is something a layman can do?
- danielvf 9y agohttp://heavens-above.com http://heavens-above.com First you’ll need to set your location, then click on “daily predictions for brighter satellites”. For your first time watching, look for ones brighter that 3.0 (maginitudes get brighter as the number gets smaller. So a 6.0 isn’t one most people can see with their eyes, 2.0 is a bright, easy to see star and a zero is one of the brightest stars in the sky). Also make sure the satellite is going to be high enough in the sky to see. It’s great fun! Definitely also look on heavens-above for upcoming ISS flybys. You’ll notice that the brightness varies a bit. Catch a bright one, (with a big negative number) and be amazed for life.
- clarkenheim 9y agothis is awesome, thanks
- gmiller123456 9y agoThis is the site I normally use: http://heavens-above.com/main.aspx http://heavens-above.com/main.aspx There's lots of similar websites and apps now if you search around.