3 ms·

Still, so maybe we should be mathematical about this: how much it costs to fix this and tax every new satellite proportional with it's pollution. SpaceX tried

Still, so maybe we should be mathematical about this: how much it costs to fix this and tax every new satellite proportional with it's pollution. SpaceX tried to "fix" things only when bad PR hit them, before that some leaders there decided that this is not an issue. The tax would also insensitivese to launch better/smaller satellites and not abuse the fact that launch is cheap so let's put as many stuff in orbit because we can (maybe US can get their shit together and use cables for internet like rest of the world) so Internet satellites would be used only by remote communities. IMO if you managed to somehow have electricity and old fashion telephone cables then what the hell is expensive to drag a new cable for internet to this places ?

TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Still, so maybe we should be mathematical about this: how much it costs to fix this and tax every new satellite proportional with it's pollution. That hinges on the quantifying and pricing of the solution. A smart accountant could probably figure out a fair calculation (something along the lines of % of wasted observation time, against operating costs of telescope facility in that time + depreciation). I'd love to see it. > SpaceX tried to "fix" things only when bad PR hit them, before that some leaders there decided that this is not an issue. I'll concede on this since I haven't been following the story until it hit media, and only then I've heard about SpaceX painting the satellites. I'm guessing they just didn't consider it at all, or were betting on astronomers not being that upset. > IMO if you managed to somehow have electricity and old fashion telephone cables then what the hell is expensive to drag a new cable for internet to this places ? That was before telcom monopolies, and also before people figured out they can hold infrastructure projects ransom, or block them out of spite, just because they own a piece of land that needs to be dug up or paved over.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> Still, so maybe we should be mathematical about this: how much it costs to fix this and tax every new satellite proportional with it's pollution. That hinges on the quantifying and pricing of the solution. A smart accountant could probably figure out a fair calculation (something along the lines of % of wasted observation time, against operating costs of telescope facility in that time + depreciation). I'd love to see it. > SpaceX tried to "fix" things only when bad PR hit them, before that some leaders there decided that this is not an issue. I'll concede on this since I haven't been following the story until it hit media, and only then I've heard about SpaceX painting the satellites. I'm guessing they just didn't consider it at all, or were betting on astronomers not being that upset. > IMO if you managed to somehow have electricity and old fashion telephone cables then what the hell is expensive to drag a new cable for internet to this places ? That was before telcom monopolies, and also before people figured out they can hold infrastructure projects ransom, or block them out of spite, just because they own a piece of land that needs to be dug up or paved over.