11 ms·
“Beyond the limit”: Satellites and mirrors in space pose threat to the night sky
- michelb 3mo agoWorrying for sure. But I doubt the current USA, along with Israel and Russia are going to be bothered about this. Everyone is launching satellites and other gear into orbit for war.
- SubiculumCode 3mo agoOr defense.
- sylos 3mo agoDefense is just a polite term for war.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- SubiculumCode 3mo agoThere is this mistaken idea out there that if the U.S. were to disarm, then other nations would also disarm, and the whole world would live in peace. But history tells us over and over that power abhors a vacuum, and were the U.S. to leave the world, another would take its place, probably Russia or China. If we disarmed, then another nation with arms will inevitably invade the U.S.
- alchemism 3mo agoFun fact: a successful invasion of the North American continent has very little to do with weaponry and more to do with logistics and projection of force across an ocean. There is only one superpower with the capabilities to do it at all.
- SubiculumCode 3mo agoYes. Right now...because the U.S. had the biggest baddest military that the world had ever known. If we had not had that, someone else would have made one. It's one thing to forgo an option that does not seem viable versus expecting the same decision when it is.
- alchemism 3mo agoYou mean like the British Empire? ....The Spanish Empire maybe? The only modern contender, the Japanese Empire, arose partly by the encouragement of Teddy Roosevelt.
- inglor_cz 3mo agoIf you are OK with US isolationism, then your fun fact is very salient. If you'd like to keep the US-led coalition of mostly free countries intact, then your concept of the US military needs must include a lot more activity that just "defending from a hypothetical invasion of North America by Old World powers". Defense of allies elsewhere, keeping trade routes on the ocean open and safe. I think the fiascos around tariffs demonstrated quite nicely why glorious autarky is no longer an option. Too much stuff is produced elsewhere, from resources to highly specialized products like icebreakers.
- enoint 3mo agoWhat should the ratio be of missiles to missile interceptors?
- runarberg 3mo agoIdeally 0:0
- SubiculumCode 3mo agoSince that ideal is not ever going to be a reality unless every human is dead, I'll treat that as a deflection. Having to govern means throwing away fantasies and working with the world we actually live in to protect our actually very real families.
- runarberg 3mo agoa) You are allowed to dream big b) You are allowed to set ambitious goals c) Your speech (e.g. “protect our families”) mirrors those of war mongers, what about the families who’s your bombs are pointing at? Nobody gets to tell me to throw away my dream of a better and more humane world, and settle for one with horrors and war crimes. Us humans have multiple times in the past significantly reduced our weapons of war, we can, and should, do so again. Lets start with the missiles, and I‘m sure the interceptors will follow.
- gordonhart 3mo agoInteresting that your list omits China considering they have firm plans to launch ~41k satellites for government/commercial constellations plus ITU filings for >200k proposed satellites.
- michelb 3mo agoThanks, they definitely also belong on that list.
- johnnyApplePRNG 3mo agoThey're already itching to throw space-lasers into orbit. [0] I wish I was joking. [0] https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-900854 https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-900854
- cog-flex 3mo agoThe most moral lasers in the world.
- tapland 3mo agoUgh the part about Munich is depressing. Finding a dark clear sky spot is one of the worlds greatest joys and most awesome experiences.
- zoilism 3mo agoFor the first time in human history, the generations living now have been systematically robbed of their ancestral right to witness the night sky and its jaw-droppingly awe-inspiring magnificence.
- qntmfred 3mo agoyou can still go outside at night and look up. get a grip.
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoCry me a river
- BenjiWiebe 3mo agoDid you know that if you stay up a bit later* than twilight, the satellites disappear? *The later you stay up the more disappear, until the middle of the night. But they're most obvious shortly after dark.
- xadhominemx 3mo agoI am a science and astronomy fan, but I am sorry, in this case progress is more important. If we regret our decision, the LEOs will fall out of the sky by themselves in a few years and it will be ok.
- isthatafact 3mo agoScience is progress. Putting mirrors in space in order to provide sunlight at night seems more like willful destruction than progress.
- Dig1t 3mo agoConnectivity for the entire globe does more for progress. Millions of people have access to the wealth of human knowledge that wouldn’t otherwise have it (Africa, rural people around the world). Additionally, what we lose in visibility from earth we will more than gain in visibility from space telescopes, which will be funded by profits provided by LEO satellites. Any way you slice it, it’s a massive net increase in scientific progress and quality of life for many millions of people.
- isthatafact 3mo agoIt does not need to be a choice between having internet or seeing stars at night. Also, telescopes on the ground can be made much bigger and more powerful than in space, so even if some satellite profits were somehow (magically?) directed toward space telescopes, losing the night sky would be bad for science.
- Dig1t 3mo ago>It does not need to be a choice between having internet or seeing stars at night. It’s not, we’ll be able to see the stars no matter what. There are many millions of people who are getting real broadband access to the internet for the first time right now because of these satellites. It really does enable an entirely new way of living for people in rural areas, I see this myself firsthand every day. Many areas are just economically not feasible to run fiber cables to. Cheap access to space means you can put space telescopes into orbits that provide views entirely unobtainable from earth. And with cheap access to space we can eventually put space telescopes which exceed the size of the largest ground telescopes which won’t have to deal with atmospheric interference or light pollution at all. Starship will lower the cost to orbit by 15x. Making entirely new types of scientific missions economically viable including extremely large space telescopes.
- rcpt 3mo agoWhy are they bright? Do they have big lights flashing or is it reflection
- 0-_-0 3mo agoAnd what are they reflecting when they are in Earth's shadow?
- croes 3mo agoThey aren’t in the Earth’s shadow at the start of the night > For the SpaceX satellite mega-constellation, he found that dozens of trails would appear in each image taken two hours into the night with ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) at Paranal Observatory in Chile Not to mention the satellites of Reflect Orbital whose sole purpose is reflecting sun light into night areas
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- layer8 3mo agoThere are a lot of night-time light sources on Earth to reflect.
- pwg 3mo agoLikely because, in space, reflective items don't heat up as much from sunlight as would a dark, energy absorbing, material. Shedding heat in space is a difficult enough endeavor already without also painting your satellite black so it reflects less light (and thereby absorbs more heat).
- Legend2440 3mo agoThis is a tradeoff we have to make with infrastructure and development in general. How do you balance human needs with pristine nature? Do we put up long-distance power lines and wind farms even though they ruin the views? Do you tear down a forest to put up farmlands and suburbs? Do you build a dam to provide water for irrigation, even though it kills the fish and floods a valley? Satellites are actually easier than most of those tradeoffs, because nothing lives in space and there's no nature to destroy. It only affects us.
- croes 3mo agoThey hinder the view on asteroids coming our way. The purpose of most of these satellites is internet access where we already have less limited possibilities with less maintenance costs like constant replacement
- Legend2440 3mo agoNo they don't. It's more of an issue for long-exposure galaxies and nebula. And asteroids are an extremely rare threat in the first place. It's literally a once-in-a-million-years kind of event.
- croes 3mo agoDinosaur killers? Yes. City killers? That size hits more often > Asteroids with a diameter more than 30–50 metres (100–150ft) are large enough to make it through our atmosphere intact, however, and the chance of this happening is estimated to be around once in every 100 years. > The damage from an impact of this size would be wide-ranging, and could wipe out an entire city if they were to impact a heavily populated area. https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/chances-asteroid-hitting-earth https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/chances-ast...
- Legend2440 3mo agoWe lack the technology to detect this size of asteroid with enough time to do anything about it. Luckily, the majority of the earth's surface is unpopulated. Most of these rocks hit the ocean or Siberia and cause few or no casualties. The odds of it hitting a major city are quite low.
- 0-_-0 3mo agoIf we can launch 1M satellites, how many telescopes can we launch?
- croes 3mo agoWho is we? Certainly not amateur astronomers who made important discoveries with their telescopes
- monocasa 3mo agoIf the cost to orbit does get low enough as is the assumption in this article, I would be shocked if we didn't start to see amateur space based telescopes.
- verdverm 3mo agoOr services where you can buy some photos, like we have for the telescopes pointed at earth
- croes 3mo agoGreat, a fee to look at the sky
- verdverm 3mo agoLight pollution from the ground is causing more impact on (naked eye / amateur telescope) star viewing than satellites. My comment is more for the niche of people who find value in purchasing satellite time, they could be pointed in the other direction.
- croes 3mo agoWith free access or only affordable for rich county citizens?
- SapporoChris 3mo agoAgreed, I think the entire issue can be resolved with more telescopes in orbit. I can understand European Southern Observatory (ESO) being concerned about becoming obsolete, but is the astronomy community as a whole concerned about the issue? I understand there's currently around 722 observatories (some defunct, some are in orbit) based on this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observatories#Observatories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_astronomical_observato... But perhaps there are others I am unaware of. Quoted: Hainaut explains that "satellites, illuminated by the Sun, are much brighter than distant galaxies. When a satellite crosses what we observe, it makes a bright streak on our image, zapping whatever is behind it." It sounds like this only affects visible light telescopes.
- Rekindle8090 3mo ago[dead]
- manoDev 3mo agoShould it be possible to coordinate orbits to create permanent clear spots on the sky where observatories are? A LEO no flight zone of sorts.
- stouset 3mo agoIt’s not just about where the observatories are. It’s where they want to point to. Good luck figuring out which part of the night sky isn’t important for astronomy.
- manoDev 3mo agoI understand that, but I would expect distant LEO satellites to appear close to the horizon, such that a relatively small aperture in the orbits would allow for a large cone of clear sky near the ground.
- arjie 3mo agoThese kinds of caps have for years been a dampener on human flourishing. My observation has been that those in stagnation or decline tend to attach themselves to these desires to hold the status quo. Anti-energy, anti-housing, anti-industry and so on because they've reached a local maxima in their ability to live and have chosen to spend their life in leisure. But there is the rest of the world, and if I'm told that the Africans should not have access to high-speed satellite Internet[0] so that the Europeans can use one specific method of looking at the stars, I don't find that convincing. In time, as we expand, space-based observation will become fairly feasible for everyone. And the satellites we have will decay to the Earth should we fail to keep them up there. We will build Earth orbital structures and swarms, and we will build Sun orbital structures and swarms, and we will go to the stars, and it will be better for humanity as a whole. 0: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/07/02/africans-are-turning-to-starlink https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/07/02/...
- isatty 3mo agoWell, if you build too many satellites in the swarms, at some point you will lose the ability to see or go to the stars.
- m4rtink 3mo agoUnless you literally make Earth be indoors like in the Blame manga megastructure, any realistic satellite or debris swarm will either be in low orbit and will relatively soon burn up or in high orbit & spread over such a big area that with well planned trajectory it will not cause you any further issues.
- gordonhart 3mo agoIn related news, earlier this year Chile cancelled plans for a gigawatt-scale solar/wind powered hydrogen production plant nearby the ESO facility in the Atacama desert after light pollution complaints from European scientists.
- umpalumpaaa 3mo agoAnd swarms
- holoduke 3mo agoah and guess what. only western US / European countries are allowed to have them. The rest are called shadow fleet satellites.
- ChrisArchitect 3mo agoTitle is: One million satellites and mirrors in space pose grave threat to the night sky
- SilverElfin 3mo agoIt’s a public space. No one should be able to just take it over for free. We aren’t being compensated for the pollution of our skies. And also, higher orbits require much longer for debris to fall back and burn up.
- tiahura 3mo ago99.99% of the world would rather watch a train of Starlink satellites than some star they couldn't see anyway. Not to mention the satellites' other benefits.
- protortyp 3mo agoOf course this comes from a European organisation.
- earthnail 3mo agoI really wanted to downvote this because I hate the constant EU bashing, but I just have to agree. So we can’t see the stars from Munich anymore? Yes, that’s depressing, but we’re not trying to reduce light smog in Munich right now, are we? Because all the buildings that have been build, all the streets and trains, also make it hard to see the stars. More light is one of the things progress has always brought, and eventually we will just have to accept that we started building in the sky, too. We should introduce a global agreement that commercial satellites must fall out of the sky within a few years to reduce debris. It should be an agreeable term since the debris hinders everyone doing business up there. Every nation is going to partially ignore it anyway, for military purposes for example. But that’s a different demand than a cap on the total number of satellites.
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo ago> we’re not trying to reduce light smog in Munich right now, are we we aren't? Bavarian Regulation on Light Pollution, Federal Nature Conservation Act, etc Municipal lighting is regulated with light pollution in mind and allegedly you get fined over bright commercial lights at night
- tick_tock_tick 3mo agoEurope has given up on advancing anything and their only solutions to problems is regulations.
- kmaitreys 3mo agoWhat advancement is being made exactly? SpaceX data centres to create more AI slop?
- kmaitreys 3mo agoWhat exactly is the implication of saying this? This is not about over-regulation at all.
- ck2 3mo agotoo late https://satellitemap.space https://satellitemap.space there are already several starlink competitors and even other countries planning to launch their own 1000-10,000 node networks
- rho138 3mo agoIt upsets me that an establishment like ESO would grip on the “data centers in space” narrative given the absurd physics constraints.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoShould so many large institutions taking it seriously not give you pause? Cause you to consider that perhaps they're economically viable for a reason you're unaware of? Or even that you could have a misunderstanding about the physics?
- patmorgan23 3mo ago"All the large institutions are doing it" has never resulted in disaster (see the dot com bubble and the great financial crisis). It seems preposterous that building a data center and launching it into space would be more practical than building a data center terrestrially. Every problem gets 10 to 100 times harder (Cooling, energy, how are you going to do maintenance on the thing, it's in space?) The only thing that's easier is you don't have to do any local community engagement. If a grid connection is the constraint on your project, building an islanded data center with a buttload of solar and batteries seems a lot more feasible than launching it into space. Then you have the option to build a grid connection later and monitize those resourcess.
- rho138 3mo agoIt’s a knee jerk defense proposition that feeds the machine. No one gave a shit until iran launched drones at Amazon datacenters.
- nablaxcroissant 3mo agoI'm not sure how exactly they are making these calculations but I just don't see it. Both Reflect and SpaceX are targeting SSO orbits where they are only reflecting for an hour or two at sunset. That isn't true of Starlink, but that constellation is already up there and if its fine right now, I don't see it getting much worse as the materials on it get refined to be less problematic. More regulations would just have the result of cementing a monopoly for Spacex.
- ben_w 3mo agoAll satellites in LEO only show up at close to sunset (and sunrise): When they're away from the terminator, they're either on the sun-side, and hence you can't see them for all the blue sky around them, or the night-side, in which case you can't see them because they're not lit by the sun because the Earth is in the way. I'm still checking the maths on how bright a million satellites in a terminator-following SSO would be. I'm getting very big numbers. But then, the (vague and aspirational) suggestions I'm seeing right now for SpaceX are in the 120 kW range, which is huge, and lining up a million of those is enough for a contiguous ring just under 10 meters wide (how much under is "just under" depends both on how efficient the PV is and how high in LEO you go). Regardless of if they're all in one orbit or spread over in multiple orbits at different shells that are all terminator-following SSO, from the ground you're getting a train of things with somewhat higher brightness than the ISS, with a fairly small apparent separation that (I tentatively think) becomes less than your eyes can resolve at at least one point in the sky (if there's say 50 shells, where those 50 get close to crossing).
- mirashii 3mo ago> that constellation is already up there and if its fine right now A lot of astronomers disagree.
- criddell 3mo agoAnd a lot of starlink customers agree. How can this be resolved?
- 3mo ago
- CodesInChaos 3mo agoHow much CO2 does launching a million satellites produce? Is is significant compared to other sources of CO2?
- verdverm 3mo agoCompare it to air planes, which are already at a much more significant scale. Accounting for fuel type and combustion efficiency seems relevant. I recall around SpaceX 100th landing, that a day of just transatlantic flights was more than everything SpaceX had done to that point
- fc417fc802 3mo agoExactly, they don't matter when compared to general aviation or even just consumer shipping. And in all cases, if you produce the fuel using renewables then the CO2 output is trivially brought near zero.
- balfirevic 3mo ago"General aviation" does not include commercial air transport, so that's probably not what you meant.
- stevage 3mo ago> And in all cases, if you produce the fuel using renewables then the CO2 output is trivially brought near zero. But...they don't.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoBut they could. Which generally means that objections of the form "we should cut back on [activity] because it produces too much CO2" are misplaced. The only activity we need to cut back on is the extraction of geological carbon.
- stevage 3mo ago
- chhxdjsj 3mo ago[dead]
- mrwaffle 3mo agoFor a very imprecise visual, I like the site https://satellite.love https://satellite.love
- upofadown 3mo ago>SpaceX plans to send one million more satellites into orbit, for space-based data centres, ... I think we should wait to see how the first satellite data centre works out. It seems fairly unlikely that it could be practical. It seems kind of nuts... >Reflect Orbital, a US start-up, aims to launch a constellation of very large mirror-like satellites to provide sunlight at night, with reflected beams that span at least five kilometres on Earth's surface. Straight up nuts with no practical value, even if it did work out.
- ggreer 3mo agoI can think of several practical uses. It would be very useful immediately after a disaster. Lighting up the night would make search & rescue much more effective. It would also allow for more solar power generation in an area, reducing pollution. Extra light at high latitudes in the winter would reduce seasonal depression. Are they worth the cost/tradeoffs? I don’t know. But there is practical value to lighting up the night.
- chickensong 3mo ago> Are they worth the cost/tradeoffs? No. Lighting up the night is an abomination. Reflect Orbital can go fuck themselves.
- verzali 3mo agoIt doesn't work out anyway. If you work out how much light these satellites can reflect it is practically nothing and certainly not economically viable. The company seems to be little more than a way to extract money from fools.
- toss1 3mo ago>>Are they worth the cost/tradeoffs? Hell NO!! Ubiquitous on-the-ground lighting is already disrupting plant, animal, and insect life cycles. Adding a blanketing sun reflector illuminating five-plus square kilometers at a time will obliterate critical signals to everything living there, and won't do any good for the humans. And nevrermind the astronomy. It is an abomination and nothing but a scheme by amoral people to separate other fools from their money.
- riazrizvi 3mo agoYes okay, good luck with that. The strategic importance to nations is far too high, it just means astronomy will evolve to a thing where it's done from space. But if you want to be the region where you support these ideas and undermine your own political support for national self-interest then that's your choice. Europe is overrun by these professional class types with nice ideas that are misprioritized. It's like a land of people that behave like pets lacking practical self-sufficiency.
- zer0energy 3mo agoI do not understand why the astronomers feel entitled to determine fair use of the sky. I feel like it's much easier and more reasonable to ask what the telescopes can do to mitigate the problem than to insist that others back off from use of the communal resource. The great observatories are marvels of engineering - a focused effort on technical mitigations to the satellite problem would likely push the problem out for decades into the future. Two possible paths forward: 1. inserting a shutter into the beam path while a satellite is transiting the field of view of the telescope, or 2. (somewhat worse from an SNR perspective) terminating an exposure right before it's corrupted by a transiting satellite and starting a new exposure once the satellite has passed. I for one would much rather see effort put into advancing telescope design than blocking advances of our use of space!
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo agomaybe for example because thanks to them we have satellites in the first place? I agree with this and I'm not an astronomer btw.
- vova_hn2 3mo ago> thanks to them we have satellites in the first place? What kind of astronomy knowledge is required to launch a satellite?
- ShinyLeftPad 3mo agoidk if I want to list all if it cause it will be very long but let's start with knowing that earth rotates on its axis;)
- patmorgan23 3mo agoOrbital mechanics are pretty important when you're launching something that orbits the Earth.
- next_xibalba 3mo agoFortunately, no one owns space, so we don’t have to listen to these decels.
- garbagewoman 3mo agoFor people that like to go outside on the other hand, its a real issue
- kmaitreys 3mo agoThat's an insane take. Do you actually understand what is being argued? It's an threat to ground based telescopes in the name of more slop-generating infrastructure.
- next_xibalba 3mo agoI think it is dead obvious to anyone willing to be honest that the value created by more satellites absolutely dwarfs the value of ground based telescopes.
- kmaitreys 3mo agoYour understanding of what means value to this world is deeply pitiable.
- imhoguy 3mo agoWait for LEO EMPs in future conflicts.
- Aaron_NW 3mo agoI'm building a weather app, so this hits close to home. We talk about satellites as connectivity infrastructure, but I had not considered the impact to the night sky. I wonder if there are solutions like satellites posted further away around the moon with fewer relay satellites shared around the earth?
- Georgelemental 3mo agoWe should launch more orbital telescopes.
- kmaitreys 3mo agoSure but it doesn't we can replace ground-based oned with space telescopes. They don't make the same class of observations
- scoofy 3mo agoDumb question, can we put cameras on the backs of all these satellites, so they can record outside the atmosphere all the time?
- kmaitreys 3mo agoThe issue at hand is with the ground based telescopes. We need both ground-based and space-based telescopes because with ground based telescopes you can create arrays and interferometers enabling a much larger baseline (in layman terms this means much higher angular resolution)
- utopiah 3mo agoI would be curious how impactful people here think SpaceX satellite fleet is. Satellite communication is an impressive technical feet. In some very niche cases it is the only viable way. In the vast majority of cases though it is terrible compared to laying down cables. What LEO does is addressing a minuscule market. Sure you know a guy, or you might even has a dish on your van, and honestly that's cool. But that is also NOT normal. The van life or having Internet connectivity while crossing the Atlantic on a boat is NOT daily life for the vast VAST majority of people. Most people do 9 to 5 from one suburb to another part of a city. Not a tiny remote town, a city. Those cities are where people actually live and work for decades now already have electricity and in most cases telephony. We can use those. I think when we have to make decisions that affect us all we have to step back. It is not anymore about a couple of sexy examples, it is about actual impact and actual usage. This is the opposite of appropriate technology while spoiling a common good.
- rightbyte 3mo agoI'd say Starlink's main selling point is spying not utility for cell phone users.
- utopiah 3mo agoI don't see why would anybody accept that without a significant upside.
- rightbyte 3mo agoThere are no upside for non Starlink subscribers and we weren't asked either. I dunno how many times a day they snoop my phone position from space. Best case Mr Musk only know there is a phone here on the sun deck not which one. I don't know if the signal leaks PI.
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoI’m shocked, an European agency wants to regulate how many satellites should orbit earth at a given time? Is regulation the only solution EU has for everything? Have they forgotten how to think a bit more creatively? Like developing algorithms to remove clutter added by satellites in observation data or even to deploy more space telescopes. Is that too much to ask?
- notrealyme123 3mo ago> A new European Southern Observatory (ESO) study has found that current proposals to launch over 1.7 million satellites into orbit, including extremely bright ones, would have “devastating consequences for astronomy.” I have a hard time fitting your response to the posted article.
- sajithdilshan 3mo ago> A new European Southern Observatory (ESO) study has found that current proposals to launch over 1.7 million satellites into orbit, including extremely bright ones, would have “devastating consequences for astronomy.” According to the study, no more than 100 000 faint satellites, below naked eye visibility, should orbit Earth, to safeguard our ability to observe the night sky with modern telescopes Maybe you should have read the next sentence as well.
- notrealyme123 3mo agoESO is not an EU agency. They don't write anything about regularisation. I stand with my original comment.
- sajithdilshan 3mo agoYeah you’re right, all the member countries are in African continent (https://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/memberstates/ https://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/memberstates/)
- metalman 3mo ago1- what night sky? do you mean the one that is so bright from electric lighting that the seagulls are now flying a night shift? 2- one of the taboo subjects is solar phenominon and what happens if everything in orbit looses guidance due to a local stellar event? do we get a ring? or lots of meteors
- aristofun 3mo agoWe don’t take our cities sound and light pollution seriously. I bet it plays important role in all the anxiety and other popular health issues rising.
- partomniscient 3mo agoI still remember thinking as a young person (now 50+) that it was stupid leaving all these lights on at night, particularly corporate logos on buildings. I've moved out of the city and can see most of the stars still, although my eyesight is now failing and I can't see stars I used to... We are becoming inwardly and selfishly focused as a species and disconnected to the world the alone the rest of the solar system/universe.
- redsocksfan45 3mo ago[dead]
- effed3 3mo agoThis is not -progress-, is speculaton, at astronomical level, as 1M sat in orbit, only a very small part of humans will benefit (shareholders, but i doubt all), all the rest not even. We really need to surf web at Gb/s speed in the mid of nowhere?
- tmach32 3mo agoI remember Bucky Fuller writing how seeing an airplane fly overhead used to be rare. In my own childhood, seeing a satellite fly overhead used to be rare. Now I see one every 2 minutes.