>> You falsely claim I said this is about limited space. I didn’t use the word “limited” until now This is what you wrote: > put them in high orbit so they do

>> You falsely claim I said this is about limited space. I didn’t use the word “limited” until now This is what you wrote: > put them in high orbit so they do useful things in local night, limiting you to a small total count planet-wide Do you seriously wish to claim this is not a statement about limited space? > You falsely claim I’m moving the goalposts, when I said it was about safety of overlapping beams Nobody is disputing that your original argument was about the safety of overlapping beams. You moved the goalposts when you replaced that argument, which was based on your incorrect understanding of orbital geometry, with one about intentional sabotage ("hackers point all the ones visible to NYC at NYC"). > In point of fact, the half-dozen number wouldn’t even be geostationary in the scenario I was envisioning, which ought to have been obvious from even a cursory moment’s thought. The article linked at the top of this page (you know, the thing we are supposed to be discussing) is about a development program which starts with a LEO demonstrator, followed by a larger MEO demonstrator, followed by GW-class stations in geosynchronous orbit. The latter are the standard commercial scenario which has been envisioned since the 70s. If you had another scenario in mind, you "forgot" to say so. Again. Even while confirming that the "limit is not how many physically fit in geostationary orbit — I agree that’s fine". > One misunderstanding is on me, but this many isn’t worth the effort. No problem, it was obvious from your first reply that you're not interested in a factual discussion.