4 ms·
This NIMOP ("Not In My Orbital Plane") movement is very concerning and I feel the need to speak out against the dangers of this "luddite movement" type thinking
by mchusma 6y ago
This NIMOP ("Not In My Orbital Plane") movement is very concerning and I feel the need to speak out against the dangers of this "luddite movement" type thinking.
First, of course its good for companies to reduce the negative externalities of things in space (paint, shades, etc). I think there is near universal agreement here, including from SpaceX.
However, there is no way to become a space faring civilization without putting lots of things in space, period. I want to see 1,000,000x more objects in space, including much larger ones.
If we truly become space faring, we have the matter and resources to have a quadrillion humans living in comfort (likely in large rotating space habitats like"O Neil Cylinders"). This is the kind of dream we could have, imagine over 100,000x the humans, artists, friendship, science, and love. We can simultaneously make earth an ecological paradise, with most of the planet reserved for nature.
This "anti-satellite" movement seems to generally have 4 kinds of attacks against the satellites:
1) The satellites "impede my rights to view the sky". The implication is that anyone who attempts to build in their "view to infinity" violates their rights. This seems like an extremely presumptuous statement, like they own trillions of miles. This also doesn't match the current legal framework of any country (nobody needs your permission to fly over your house in aircraft or space).
2) The usecase of these satellites is bad because they are "like cell towers". Getting low cost internet access for the planet is IMO an extremely good thing, one of the best things for the poor.
3) The satellites will kill astronomy. This is absurd, we will have much better astronomy if we are a space fairing species with cheap space access and many things/expertise in space and giant telescopes outside our atmosphere. It may kill amateur astronomy from earth eventually, but I just don't think that as society a relatively fringe hobby should stop the progress of humanity. Many hobbies have been killed over time. I personally think this will inspire more people to look to space, and have the opposite effect.
4) We should not put things into space, and we should look to reduce our impact on the universe. This also manifests itself in those that want to see population reduction on Earth. I believe consciousness is better than lifeless rock. I say this as a human and a parent who has brought consciousness into the world.
Lets upgrade our dreams, take to the stars, and make the universe a more interesting place.
- jacquesm 6y agoRight. The problem is not that it is 'in my orbital plane', the problem is that it is in everybody's orbital plane whether or not they - or their government - has a say in the matter. You can't escape it. There is no backyard where this isn't an issue. This is now presented as a fact we will have to live with and if you are against 10's of thousands of orbital satellites you are now - according to you - immediately against progress. This obviously isn't the case. So, let's stop the clock for a bit until we have a much better idea of what the impact of all this littering will be and whether or not there is something that can be done about it before we end up with a situation that is out of control. SpaceX is not the world, LEO is not US property and whether or not low cost satellite access is such a good thing that we should give up easy access to visible light astronomy is not a given. This has nothing to do with 'taking to the stars', 'making the universe a more interesting place' or 'upgrading our dreams'. It is a simple commercial proposition.
- avmich 6y agoThat simple commercial proposition makes it a bit hard to stop for now, unless SpaceX changes course. We of course should weight benefits and drawbacks. At least low-orbit Earth satellites aren't too long lived.
- DennisP 6y ago> This has nothing to do with 'taking to the stars' Actually it does, because Starlink is intended to fund Starship development and Mars colonization.
- jacquesm 6y agoSorry, but Mars colonization is nonsense. It isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future and the people that believe this stuff are no less stupid than the ones following the next messiah. I wrote about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24058911 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24058911 Just to put this into perspective a bit: every little bit of civilization in Iceland, every nail, every staple, every fruit, every tool has to be flown in or brought in by boat. Everything. And Iceland is a place that compared to Mars is paradise. The only things they have plenty of are energy, fish and sheep. And on Mars you wouldn't even have that. It's just too silly to take serious. Musk and Hughes have a lot in common. They are both genius, wealthy, capable and at times a bit batty. I'm fine with Elon being a bit batty, if that give us electric cars, reusable rockets and more. But I'm not buying into the cult. Starlink is borderline for me. I can see the utility. But the idea that space can be commercialized with such total disregard for what effectively is our largest commons is simply wrong to me.