4 ms·

I'm not spinning anything, and the scenario I'm responding to (62k satellites in one launch) has not occurred. I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparen

I'm not spinning anything, and the scenario I'm responding to (62k satellites in one launch) has not occurred. I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome.

kitsunesoba 6y ago
> I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome. I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover from when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the door and was more vulnerable to the whims of public opinion (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA contracts which strong public pressure could get cut). Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts, especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely and quickly than corrections do. All that said, no company is above criticism and I do not encourage fanboyism.
- herodoturtle 6y ago
  > I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover from when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the door and was more vulnerable to the whims of public opinion (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA contracts which strong public pressure could get cut). > Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts, especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely and quickly than corrections do. Well said. > All that said, no company is above criticism Agreed. > and I do not encourage fanboyism. Nah man, it's cool to be a fanboy of SpaceX. But I think the point is that we're not overly sensitive to criticism of SpaceX.
jeffparsons 6y ago
> [...] even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome. I think it's more that the question you asked, _in the way you asked it_, is so oft-repeated and shallow that it's indistinguishable from concern trolling or other similar kinds of low effort drive-by sniping. Of course that doesn't mean that your question was insincere. But consider that pretty much anyone who has shown the slightest bit of interest in spaceflight has probably seen nearly that exact question hundreds, if not thousands of times. It's nearly as common as "why are we spending money on space when there are still so many problems to fix down here on Eaaaaarth?" It's likewise not a constructive question, and it's just not reasonable to expect a positive response. EDIT: By the way, I do find the question of what to do about all the stuff already zipping around in various Earth orbits, and how we regulate the addition of new satellites to be a really interesting and important topic. It's only that I've never seen "how much X is too much X" — especially when asked in response to a report of someone doing X — generating meaningful discussion. How about... "if one country regulates its own space industry to mitigate addition of new LEO debris (limits, tracking, investing in clean-up tech), then at least some other countries will just ignore it. Are there any existing multilateral agreements in place for this stuff specifically, or maybe agreements in other domains that have successfully avoided similar kinds of tragedy of the commons down on Earth? Nuclear disarmament and ocean protection aren't working perfectly, but have had some positive impact..."
jjoonathan 6y ago
Ehh, your phrasing was dangerously close to the "how many is too many" political rhetoric that typically connotes not only the existence of a moral boundary but having already crossed the boundary and caused significant damage. That's what set people off, not "a whiff of anything short of pure adoration." A small change, like tweaking the phrasing to "is there a limit?," would have avoided the landmine and signaled that you were looking for a good faith engineering discussion rather than political headbutting.

kitsunesoba 6y ago

> I've been a fan of SpaceX for years, but apparently even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome. I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover from when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the door and was more vulnerable to the whims of public opinion (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA contracts which strong public pressure could get cut). Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts, especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely and quickly than corrections do. All that said, no company is above criticism and I do not encourage fanboyism.

herodoturtle 6y ago
> I think it's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction leftover from when SpaceX was still trying to get its foot in the door and was more vulnerable to the whims of public opinion (since early on, it was wholly dependent on NASA contracts which strong public pressure could get cut). > Spaceflight is also one of those subjects that tends to attract opinions and fears more based in sensationalized headlines and Hollywood depictions than reality. This is natural since space isn't exactly accessible to general public, but it can be frustrating for enthusiasts, especially since unfounded claims spread much more widely and quickly than corrections do. Well said. > All that said, no company is above criticism Agreed. > and I do not encourage fanboyism. Nah man, it's cool to be a fanboy of SpaceX. But I think the point is that we're not overly sensitive to criticism of SpaceX.

jeffparsons 6y ago

> [...] even a whiff of anything short of pure adoration is enough to send some fanboys into a tizzy. It's tiresome. I think it's more that the question you asked, _in the way you asked it_, is so oft-repeated and shallow that it's indistinguishable from concern trolling or other similar kinds of low effort drive-by sniping. Of course that doesn't mean that your question was insincere. But consider that pretty much anyone who has shown the slightest bit of interest in spaceflight has probably seen nearly that exact question hundreds, if not thousands of times. It's nearly as common as "why are we spending money on space when there are still so many problems to fix down here on Eaaaaarth?" It's likewise not a constructive question, and it's just not reasonable to expect a positive response. EDIT: By the way, I do find the question of what to do about all the stuff already zipping around in various Earth orbits, and how we regulate the addition of new satellites to be a really interesting and important topic. It's only that I've never seen "how much X is too much X" — especially when asked in response to a report of someone doing X — generating meaningful discussion. How about... "if one country regulates its own space industry to mitigate addition of new LEO debris (limits, tracking, investing in clean-up tech), then at least some other countries will just ignore it. Are there any existing multilateral agreements in place for this stuff specifically, or maybe agreements in other domains that have successfully avoided similar kinds of tragedy of the commons down on Earth? Nuclear disarmament and ocean protection aren't working perfectly, but have had some positive impact..."

jjoonathan 6y ago

Ehh, your phrasing was dangerously close to the "how many is too many" political rhetoric that typically connotes not only the existence of a moral boundary but having already crossed the boundary and caused significant damage. That's what set people off, not "a whiff of anything short of pure adoration." A small change, like tweaking the phrasing to "is there a limit?," would have avoided the landmine and signaled that you were looking for a good faith engineering discussion rather than political headbutting.