3 ms·

> The tradeoff of losing visibility of space from anywhere on the planet for the convenience that these things provide is not worth it. You state this as a fac

> The tradeoff of losing visibility of space from anywhere on the planet for the convenience that these things provide is not worth it. You state this as a fact, but this is far from settled. I for disagree with it. Connectivity everywhere is a huge benefit. Having to ignore a few tiny specks of light on the sky is a small inconvenience compared to it. I'm ok if what you say is your preference, but you might be surprised that not everyone shares it. > I want to know that when I look up I won't have to wonder whether a bright object is an artificial satellite or an object in space. Artificial satellites are objects in space. Also you already have to. We have the ISS which is frequently visible as a fast moving bright dot, then you also have the Iridium flares. Then of course you have airplanes, which are equally easy to confuse with natural object.

imiric 3y ago
> You state this as a fact, but this is far from settled. It wasn't intended as a fact, but there's an implied "IMO" at the end of that sentence. :) You're fine to disagree with it, but at the same time, those of us who don't like this trend have no say in the matter. It is being imposed on everyone, whether we like it or not. > Also you already have to. We have the ISS which is frequently visible as a fast moving bright dot, then you also have the Iridium flares. Then of course you have airplanes, which are equally easy to confuse with natural object. The amount of airplanes in the sky visible at once don't come close to the amount of planned satellites Starlink and other corporations plan to launch in the near future. We're talking about several of orders of magnitude less. And while I also dislike seeing airplanes, at least air transportation is a general public good. We already have pretty good worldwide internet connectivity by ground. Increasing space junk globally so that remote villages without access to water can get online, or for rich people to have slightly better and cheaper connections from their yachts, sounds like a bad deal to me. And this is besides the fact that most of these satellites won't be used for providing internet access, but for the traditionally benevolent agendas of governments and large corporations.

imiric 3y ago

> You state this as a fact, but this is far from settled. It wasn't intended as a fact, but there's an implied "IMO" at the end of that sentence. :) You're fine to disagree with it, but at the same time, those of us who don't like this trend have no say in the matter. It is being imposed on everyone, whether we like it or not. > Also you already have to. We have the ISS which is frequently visible as a fast moving bright dot, then you also have the Iridium flares. Then of course you have airplanes, which are equally easy to confuse with natural object. The amount of airplanes in the sky visible at once don't come close to the amount of planned satellites Starlink and other corporations plan to launch in the near future. We're talking about several of orders of magnitude less. And while I also dislike seeing airplanes, at least air transportation is a general public good. We already have pretty good worldwide internet connectivity by ground. Increasing space junk globally so that remote villages without access to water can get online, or for rich people to have slightly better and cheaper connections from their yachts, sounds like a bad deal to me. And this is besides the fact that most of these satellites won't be used for providing internet access, but for the traditionally benevolent agendas of governments and large corporations.