2 ms·

You wrongly assume that everything will always go as planned. Disasters happens due to whatever reason. The problem is, more junk you will put into orbit, more

by Borg3 3y ago

You wrongly assume that everything will always go as planned. Disasters happens due to whatever reason. The problem is, more junk you will put into orbit, more stuff can go wrong. I think we can use those orbits for more importand stuff that Internet for the masses. We can build terrestrial infra to handle that. But yeah, that would mean distributed control, and we know what corpos wants :)

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> wrongly assume that everything will always go as planned No, I'm assuming the physics of orbital mechanics. If everything goes to shit, every object at 500km will decay into the atmosphere in ten years. > we can use those orbits for more importand stuff that Internet In the next ten years? You're conserving a fake resource based on a misunderstanding of physics to pillage our natural environment? > that would mean distributed control, and we know what corpos wants Comcast is controlled distributedly?
- Borg3 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > there are states where it is done correctly/better Where is terrestrial internet controlled in a distributed manner at scale? > I still see it as waste You called out an issue based on impossible physics. Proposed a hypothetical alternative that does not exist and won't within the relevant time frame. And now retreat to essentially an aesthetic argument based on subjective preference. I'm genuinely curious what motivates not correcting one's assumptions, or at least moderating them? You said "we can use those orbits for more importand [sic] stuff." I agree! You want to know how we make that happen? Cheaper launch costs. How do we do that? More-frequent launch. Human spaceflight occurred in three eras: not, the V2 and Starlink. Private spaceflight and reusability is cool, but Starlink prompted an order-of-magnitude shift in how humans interact with space. Add to that the problem you cited literally not existing--we cannot block ourselves from LEO, it's physically impossible--and you can see how your assumptions actually counter your aims.

by Borg3 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> wrongly assume that everything will always go as planned No, I'm assuming the physics of orbital mechanics. If everything goes to shit, every object at 500km will decay into the atmosphere in ten years. > we can use those orbits for more importand stuff that Internet In the next ten years? You're conserving a fake resource based on a misunderstanding of physics to pillage our natural environment? > that would mean distributed control, and we know what corpos wants Comcast is controlled distributedly?

Borg3 3y ago
[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > there are states where it is done correctly/better Where is terrestrial internet controlled in a distributed manner at scale? > I still see it as waste You called out an issue based on impossible physics. Proposed a hypothetical alternative that does not exist and won't within the relevant time frame. And now retreat to essentially an aesthetic argument based on subjective preference. I'm genuinely curious what motivates not correcting one's assumptions, or at least moderating them? You said "we can use those orbits for more importand [sic] stuff." I agree! You want to know how we make that happen? Cheaper launch costs. How do we do that? More-frequent launch. Human spaceflight occurred in three eras: not, the V2 and Starlink. Private spaceflight and reusability is cool, but Starlink prompted an order-of-magnitude shift in how humans interact with space. Add to that the problem you cited literally not existing--we cannot block ourselves from LEO, it's physically impossible--and you can see how your assumptions actually counter your aims.