3 ms·

The dark coating isn’t used anymore, they have a visor/sunshade instead. The satellites people can see with the naked eye have not reached their service orbit y

The dark coating isn’t used anymore, they have a visor/sunshade instead. The satellites people can see with the naked eye have not reached their service orbit yet, and they are not aligned to use the sunshade (they are instead configured to raise orbit as quickly as possible). As for the rules about polluting space, the simple fact is that none of the rules makers expected that some agency would want to launch thousands of satellites. There are no rules covering this scenario. AFAIK the nearest we have to rules covering the proliferation of communications satellites are ITU rules on access to spectrum. There’s no restriction on the number of satellites, just who is using what frequency in which part of the sky. If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban.

immmmmm 6y ago
thanks for the precisions! i fear however no one wants to rule on that, at least for now.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban. Question is, why would one want it? It's going to look like an equivalent of someone in XIX century capping the maximum amounts of widgets a factory can produce per year to a level that can be matched by artisan production, because all those conveyor belts and precision parts are making production too fast. Assuming one likes the idea of humanity spreading out past Earth's surface, and perhaps taking the dirtiest aspects of civilization upwell - we're going to need a proper space-based economy. Mining, manufacturing and all. Starlink's impact on LEO is going to look like child's play in comparison. So if one wants to see space being developed, then one has to accept and embrace that Earth's orbit is going to get way more cluttered than it is.
- manicdee 6y ago
  In the surface of the Earth we have designated conservation areas, wilderness areas and “dark sky parks” all intended to reduce the impact of human industry on the natural environment. We do not need StarLink to industrialise space, and we do not need factories in low Earth orbit to maximally utilise space-borne resources. This desire to pollute our skies with industrial light pollution will look to future humans as ill-guided and poorly motivated as draining the swamps (and later wondering why our ecosystems are failing).

immmmmm 6y ago

thanks for the precisions! i fear however no one wants to rule on that, at least for now.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> If you want to add rules about the number of satellites in orbit, better get in quick before StarLink becomes too valuable to ban. Question is, why would one want it? It's going to look like an equivalent of someone in XIX century capping the maximum amounts of widgets a factory can produce per year to a level that can be matched by artisan production, because all those conveyor belts and precision parts are making production too fast. Assuming one likes the idea of humanity spreading out past Earth's surface, and perhaps taking the dirtiest aspects of civilization upwell - we're going to need a proper space-based economy. Mining, manufacturing and all. Starlink's impact on LEO is going to look like child's play in comparison. So if one wants to see space being developed, then one has to accept and embrace that Earth's orbit is going to get way more cluttered than it is.

manicdee 6y ago
In the surface of the Earth we have designated conservation areas, wilderness areas and “dark sky parks” all intended to reduce the impact of human industry on the natural environment. We do not need StarLink to industrialise space, and we do not need factories in low Earth orbit to maximally utilise space-borne resources. This desire to pollute our skies with industrial light pollution will look to future humans as ill-guided and poorly motivated as draining the swamps (and later wondering why our ecosystems are failing).