4 ms·

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.

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.

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.