5 ms·

Sputnik was one satellite decades ago. Most things in space are commercial satellites at this point so the OP is correct

soperj 3y ago
99.999%. Doubt it. edit: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2021/05/The_increasing_number_of_space_objects_by_type https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2021/05/The_increa... Rounding up to 30000 objects in orbit (not even in space), that would mean 0.3 objects weren't made by capitalism. 1 object put up by government invalidates OP.
- Alupis 3y ago
  Starlink has a little over 5,000 satellites in orbit currently, with expansion planned up to 42,000 in the future. At the end of 2022, there was only 6,718 active satellites[1] in space - total. The amount of government objects (from any country, of any kind, station, spy satellite, probe, rover, etc) is dwarfed by commercial interests. This just illustrates the sheer volume of commercial objects in space... In fact, here's a list of all publicly acknowledged satellites launched by the USAF since 1984[2]. It shows 331 in total, counting inactive satellites. [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/syoung/how-many-satellites-are-in-space-the-spike-in-numbers-continues/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/syoung/how-many-satellites-are-in-sp... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USA_satellites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USA_satellites
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    It is impossible to know however, if large economies under different systems than capitalism would not have made for instance satellite phones a priority 40 years ago rather than landlines and cell towers. Capitalism didn’t because it was more expensive but a central planner might well have because they thought it was cooler. So it’s kind of unreasonable to be adamant that only because of capitalism we have stuff in space.
    - Alupis 3y ago
      Which centrally planned economy can/could afford to operate a constellation for phones? The initial Iridium constellation is estimated at around $5 Billion in 1998 money (~$9 Billion today), and it nearly killed the company in the process. That was just initial constellation expenses - monthly subscriptions are still cost prohibitive for majority of the population/general use, and ongoing maintenance is very expensive. The point is - it's not only cheaper to do land-based communications, but it's more reliable. There doesn't seem to be any reality where a centrally planned economy would take this sort of project on just for funsies...
      - Swenrekcah 3y ago
        The Soviet Union operated all sorts of uneconomical undertakings because they felt they needed to. All that is needed is motivated labour that gets fed and housed. There is no magical law that you have to pay “market rates” so people can buy themselves gadgets. Now to be clear I am not advocating for the Soviet Union or central planning, far from it. I am only saying that there is no inherent reason why you’d need capitalism to fill space up with stuff. It is obviously a very powerful system but it is not the only possible system or necessarily the best. Again I very much like regulated and properly taxed market capitalist economies and want to keep living in one.
        Alupis 3y ago
        The collapse of the Soviet Union was complex, but uneconomical undertakings did play a significant role... including the "Space Race". Which cements my point... commercialism is the only way these sorts of activities can exist.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        We should just agree to disagree. Was ancient Egypt capitalist and the pyramids a commercial enterprise? Again I am not advocating for anything except that we don’t turn economic systems into religious beliefs.
  - soperj 3y ago
    Doesn't mean that OP was correct which was what I was responding to.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  1. Someone being hyperbolic when smashing the 9 key doesn't "invalidate" their argument. In this context, 99% can serve the same purpose. 2. If we do want to be pedantic, they said "in space" and sputnik is not in space anymore.
  - soperj 3y ago
    Sure, but the flag on the moon is, along with rovers, along with the moon space cart, along with voyager 1 & 2 and many other things. 10 years ago, nearly all of it was put up by government funded vehicles. Even SpaceX wouldn't be where it is today without Government funding (might not even exist).
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      I think they were counting NASA as "because of capitalism". If you disagree with that, then that's a much better line of argument than going after the exact percentage.

soperj 3y ago

99.999%. Doubt it. edit: https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2021/05/The_increasing_number_of_space_objects_by_type https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2021/05/The_increa... Rounding up to 30000 objects in orbit (not even in space), that would mean 0.3 objects weren't made by capitalism. 1 object put up by government invalidates OP.

Alupis 3y ago
Starlink has a little over 5,000 satellites in orbit currently, with expansion planned up to 42,000 in the future. At the end of 2022, there was only 6,718 active satellites[1] in space - total. The amount of government objects (from any country, of any kind, station, spy satellite, probe, rover, etc) is dwarfed by commercial interests. This just illustrates the sheer volume of commercial objects in space... In fact, here's a list of all publicly acknowledged satellites launched by the USAF since 1984[2]. It shows 331 in total, counting inactive satellites. [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/syoung/how-many-satellites-are-in-space-the-spike-in-numbers-continues/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/syoung/how-many-satellites-are-in-sp... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USA_satellites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_USA_satellites
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  It is impossible to know however, if large economies under different systems than capitalism would not have made for instance satellite phones a priority 40 years ago rather than landlines and cell towers. Capitalism didn’t because it was more expensive but a central planner might well have because they thought it was cooler. So it’s kind of unreasonable to be adamant that only because of capitalism we have stuff in space.
  - Alupis 3y ago
    Which centrally planned economy can/could afford to operate a constellation for phones? The initial Iridium constellation is estimated at around $5 Billion in 1998 money (~$9 Billion today), and it nearly killed the company in the process. That was just initial constellation expenses - monthly subscriptions are still cost prohibitive for majority of the population/general use, and ongoing maintenance is very expensive. The point is - it's not only cheaper to do land-based communications, but it's more reliable. There doesn't seem to be any reality where a centrally planned economy would take this sort of project on just for funsies...
    - Swenrekcah 3y ago
      The Soviet Union operated all sorts of uneconomical undertakings because they felt they needed to. All that is needed is motivated labour that gets fed and housed. There is no magical law that you have to pay “market rates” so people can buy themselves gadgets. Now to be clear I am not advocating for the Soviet Union or central planning, far from it. I am only saying that there is no inherent reason why you’d need capitalism to fill space up with stuff. It is obviously a very powerful system but it is not the only possible system or necessarily the best. Again I very much like regulated and properly taxed market capitalist economies and want to keep living in one.
      - Alupis 3y ago
        The collapse of the Soviet Union was complex, but uneconomical undertakings did play a significant role... including the "Space Race". Which cements my point... commercialism is the only way these sorts of activities can exist.
        Swenrekcah 3y ago
        We should just agree to disagree. Was ancient Egypt capitalist and the pyramids a commercial enterprise? Again I am not advocating for anything except that we don’t turn economic systems into religious beliefs.
- soperj 3y ago
  Doesn't mean that OP was correct which was what I was responding to.
Dylan16807 3y ago
1. Someone being hyperbolic when smashing the 9 key doesn't "invalidate" their argument. In this context, 99% can serve the same purpose. 2. If we do want to be pedantic, they said "in space" and sputnik is not in space anymore.
- soperj 3y ago
  Sure, but the flag on the moon is, along with rovers, along with the moon space cart, along with voyager 1 & 2 and many other things. 10 years ago, nearly all of it was put up by government funded vehicles. Even SpaceX wouldn't be where it is today without Government funding (might not even exist).
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I think they were counting NASA as "because of capitalism". If you disagree with that, then that's a much better line of argument than going after the exact percentage.