5 ms·

Why does reading this sound like a prequel to 1984? I wonder how the first pioneers of aircraft would have ever gotten off the ground had they lived in a simila

Why does reading this sound like a prequel to 1984? I wonder how the first pioneers of aircraft would have ever gotten off the ground had they lived in a similar stringent ‘regulatory environment’

tptacek 9y ago
Why would there have been any air traffic regulation? There were no aircraft at the time. There are now.
- novalis78 9y ago
  Check out Glenn Martin in ‘To raise heaven ans Earth’. The amount of freedom these inventors needed and took advantage of would be much harder to achieve today. That’s exactly the point - they were able to test, build, fly, improve their ‘dangerous experiments’ without local, state or Federal government stepping in.
  - i_cant_speel 9y ago
    Because they were only a risk to themselves.
  - lovich 9y ago
    Thinking that the government shouldn't step in so that businesses can experiment with whatever they want is an interesting viewpoint when the regulation your pointing out as bad is one to keep this business from hurting others. When the Wright brothers tested their plane they only put their own bodies at risk. When swarm is throwing up satellites too small to track they are threatening every other satellite and space station in orbit. Should chemical companies be allowed to ditch their experiments into the local river because it let's them iterate faster? If the answer to that is no, then why should swarm be allowed to throw anything they want into a position to damage other orbital craft?
    - novalis78 9y ago
      I get your point I truly do. But a nefarious state (fascist, communist, dictatorial) will always use ‘safety’, ‘security’ as a concern and an argument to block and jail.
      - FireBeyond 9y ago
        I don't think the motives are ulterior. After all, Spacelink, with 4,000+ satellites, was approved recently, too. It's all about trackability.
      - vatueil 9y ago
        > But a nefarious state (fascist, communist, dictatorial) will always use ‘safety’, ‘security’ as a concern and an argument to block and jail. So what? Are there not valid reasons to bring up "safety" and "security"? Unless you're claiming we're dealing with a "nefarious state", this statement doesn't carry any weight. For that matter even nefarious states may have valid safety concerns, including preventing orbital debris.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's not responsive to what I said. Can you re-read my question and address it directly? There were no speed limits when cars were invented, either.
- FiatLuxDave 9y ago
  I didn't see novalis78 mention air traffic regulation, just regulation. According to the regulations of the time, early air pioneers were perceived to be trespassing. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usqu... Nowadays it may seem obvious that aircraft are not trespassing when they are flying over us, but it was not obvious at the time. A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means This would require quantum leaps in our propulsion and energy storage capabilities. A plane changing course and a satellite changing plane take vastly different energies. Small satellites which can manage plane changes are many, many breakthroughs away.
    - FiatLuxDave 9y ago
      I did not mean maneuvering, I meant other means of keeping track of where satellites are. A tracking system doesn't actually move the satellites either. In theory this could involve transponder requirements or orbital constraints. All I'm saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation.
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation The regulations are broad. They basically say "there must be a way to track your satellite." Transponder-based tracking doesn't work for small satellites because of the power demands. Passive approaches are preferred. I've seen small satellite designers adapt the shape and materials of their birds, to maximize reflectivity. Swarm didn't do any of this.
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  He didn’t say “air traffic regulation”, he said regulatory environment. Barriers today would range from safety regulation to disturbing endangered gnat breeding to neighborly noise complaints.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> I wonder how the first pioneers of aircraft would have ever gotten off the ground had they lived in a similar stringent ‘regulatory environment’ You realize that satellites are not a new technology, right? There are literally thousands of them up there. Sputnik was launched in 1957. Let's compare to mandatory pilots licensing. The first flights were in 1903 or so. Air traffic was regulated in various ways at the federal level by the 1920s. So about 20 years from first flight to regulation. It has been over 60 years since the first satellite launch. Also, airplanes have a distinct advantage: they are easier to track and always come down within a few minutes of breaking down. If anything, satellites should be more regulated. The idea that putting satellites in LEO is some sort of brand new never-before-done thing that deserves wide latitude for greenfield engineering is crazy. Hell, I've owned a GPS receiver for about 20 years! Space is a frontier. LEO, however, has been a crowded commons for at least a decade or two. > Why does reading this sound like a prequel to 1984? Who knows, but this seems common enough that it deserved a name. I propose "1984 disease" as a new colloquialism for the act of comparing reasonable regulation to dystopian authoritarianism.
- gnode 9y ago
  > The idea that putting satellites in LEO is some sort of brand new never-before-done thing that deserves wide latitude for greenfield engineering is crazy. Hell, I've owned a GPS receiver for about 20 years! GPS (along with the other major navigation satellite constellations) are in Medium Earth Orbit. LEO is about to become a lot more crowded, thanks to cheaper launch costs and miniaturisation. What was previously done with MEO and GEO satellites can now be done with LEO constellations, with the advantages of being closer to earth. Some proposed constellations in LEO number in the thousands of satellites, which is unprecedented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_constellation#Communications_satellite_constellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_constellation#Commun...
  - throwawayjava 9y ago
    > GPS (along with the other major navigation satellite constellations) are in Medium Earth Orbit. I'm not sure where I stated otherwise? Swarm is putting their satellites in LEO. > Some proposed constellations in LEO number in the thousands of satellites, which is unprecedented Which is much more analogous to today's highly-regulated airsplace than 1903's empty skies.
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
Just because a society has rules, doesn't make it a dystopia.
- novalis78 9y ago
  What is "a society". Who makes those rules? How far away from the will of the sovereign is the latest ABC..XYZ agency? Who oversees the regulators and law enforcement in a transparent way? Can/should one country's official dictate what other countries do or who they launch into space?
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    In this case, India said they'd do the launch only if the US agreed. All nations care about orbital debris, and in India's case, the only way they get warnings about potential collisions is because the US makes collision warnings from US radar data available to everyone for free. So they've got 2 reasons to have that rule.

tptacek 9y ago

Why would there have been any air traffic regulation? There were no aircraft at the time. There are now.

novalis78 9y ago
Check out Glenn Martin in ‘To raise heaven ans Earth’. The amount of freedom these inventors needed and took advantage of would be much harder to achieve today. That’s exactly the point - they were able to test, build, fly, improve their ‘dangerous experiments’ without local, state or Federal government stepping in.
- i_cant_speel 9y ago
  Because they were only a risk to themselves.
- lovich 9y ago
  Thinking that the government shouldn't step in so that businesses can experiment with whatever they want is an interesting viewpoint when the regulation your pointing out as bad is one to keep this business from hurting others. When the Wright brothers tested their plane they only put their own bodies at risk. When swarm is throwing up satellites too small to track they are threatening every other satellite and space station in orbit. Should chemical companies be allowed to ditch their experiments into the local river because it let's them iterate faster? If the answer to that is no, then why should swarm be allowed to throw anything they want into a position to damage other orbital craft?
  - novalis78 9y ago
    I get your point I truly do. But a nefarious state (fascist, communist, dictatorial) will always use ‘safety’, ‘security’ as a concern and an argument to block and jail.
    - FireBeyond 9y ago
      I don't think the motives are ulterior. After all, Spacelink, with 4,000+ satellites, was approved recently, too. It's all about trackability.
    - vatueil 9y ago
      > But a nefarious state (fascist, communist, dictatorial) will always use ‘safety’, ‘security’ as a concern and an argument to block and jail. So what? Are there not valid reasons to bring up "safety" and "security"? Unless you're claiming we're dealing with a "nefarious state", this statement doesn't carry any weight. For that matter even nefarious states may have valid safety concerns, including preventing orbital debris.
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's not responsive to what I said. Can you re-read my question and address it directly? There were no speed limits when cars were invented, either.
FiatLuxDave 9y ago
I didn't see novalis78 mention air traffic regulation, just regulation. According to the regulations of the time, early air pioneers were perceived to be trespassing. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usqu... Nowadays it may seem obvious that aircraft are not trespassing when they are flying over us, but it was not obvious at the time. A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > A future regulatory regime for satellites could also conceivably see it as obvious that satellite design shouldn't be limited by the ability for them to be tracked by a common tracking system, but rather have a goal to avoid collisions through other means This would require quantum leaps in our propulsion and energy storage capabilities. A plane changing course and a satellite changing plane take vastly different energies. Small satellites which can manage plane changes are many, many breakthroughs away.
  - FiatLuxDave 9y ago
    I did not mean maneuvering, I meant other means of keeping track of where satellites are. A tracking system doesn't actually move the satellites either. In theory this could involve transponder requirements or orbital constraints. All I'm saying is that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > when regulations say "you must skin a cat in this way", that can lead to technical stagnation The regulations are broad. They basically say "there must be a way to track your satellite." Transponder-based tracking doesn't work for small satellites because of the power demands. Passive approaches are preferred. I've seen small satellite designers adapt the shape and materials of their birds, to maximize reflectivity. Swarm didn't do any of this.
WillPostForFood 9y ago
He didn’t say “air traffic regulation”, he said regulatory environment. Barriers today would range from safety regulation to disturbing endangered gnat breeding to neighborly noise complaints.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> I wonder how the first pioneers of aircraft would have ever gotten off the ground had they lived in a similar stringent ‘regulatory environment’ You realize that satellites are not a new technology, right? There are literally thousands of them up there. Sputnik was launched in 1957. Let's compare to mandatory pilots licensing. The first flights were in 1903 or so. Air traffic was regulated in various ways at the federal level by the 1920s. So about 20 years from first flight to regulation. It has been over 60 years since the first satellite launch. Also, airplanes have a distinct advantage: they are easier to track and always come down within a few minutes of breaking down. If anything, satellites should be more regulated. The idea that putting satellites in LEO is some sort of brand new never-before-done thing that deserves wide latitude for greenfield engineering is crazy. Hell, I've owned a GPS receiver for about 20 years! Space is a frontier. LEO, however, has been a crowded commons for at least a decade or two. > Why does reading this sound like a prequel to 1984? Who knows, but this seems common enough that it deserved a name. I propose "1984 disease" as a new colloquialism for the act of comparing reasonable regulation to dystopian authoritarianism.

gnode 9y ago
> The idea that putting satellites in LEO is some sort of brand new never-before-done thing that deserves wide latitude for greenfield engineering is crazy. Hell, I've owned a GPS receiver for about 20 years! GPS (along with the other major navigation satellite constellations) are in Medium Earth Orbit. LEO is about to become a lot more crowded, thanks to cheaper launch costs and miniaturisation. What was previously done with MEO and GEO satellites can now be done with LEO constellations, with the advantages of being closer to earth. Some proposed constellations in LEO number in the thousands of satellites, which is unprecedented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_constellation#Communications_satellite_constellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_constellation#Commun...
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  > GPS (along with the other major navigation satellite constellations) are in Medium Earth Orbit. I'm not sure where I stated otherwise? Swarm is putting their satellites in LEO. > Some proposed constellations in LEO number in the thousands of satellites, which is unprecedented Which is much more analogous to today's highly-regulated airsplace than 1903's empty skies.

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

Just because a society has rules, doesn't make it a dystopia.

novalis78 9y ago
What is "a society". Who makes those rules? How far away from the will of the sovereign is the latest ABC..XYZ agency? Who oversees the regulators and law enforcement in a transparent way? Can/should one country's official dictate what other countries do or who they launch into space?
- greglindahl 9y ago
  In this case, India said they'd do the launch only if the US agreed. All nations care about orbital debris, and in India's case, the only way they get warnings about potential collisions is because the US makes collision warnings from US radar data available to everyone for free. So they've got 2 reasons to have that rule.