This is now presented as a fact we will have to live with and if you are against 10's of thousands of orbital satellites you are now - according to you - immediately against progress. This obviously isn't the case.
So, let's stop the clock for a bit until we have a much better idea of what the impact of all this littering will be and whether or not there is something that can be done about it before we end up with a situation that is out of control. SpaceX is not the world, LEO is not US property and whether or not low cost satellite access is such a good thing that we should give up easy access to visible light astronomy is not a given.
This has nothing to do with 'taking to the stars', 'making the universe a more interesting place' or 'upgrading our dreams'. It is a simple commercial proposition.
We of course should weight benefits and drawbacks. At least low-orbit Earth satellites aren't too long lived.
Actually it does, because Starlink is intended to fund Starship development and Mars colonization.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24058911
Just to put this into perspective a bit: every little bit of civilization in Iceland, every nail, every staple, every fruit, every tool has to be flown in or brought in by boat. Everything. And Iceland is a place that compared to Mars is paradise. The only things they have plenty of are energy, fish and sheep. And on Mars you wouldn't even have that.
It's just too silly to take serious.
Musk and Hughes have a lot in common. They are both genius, wealthy, capable and at times a bit batty. I'm fine with Elon being a bit batty, if that give us electric cars, reusable rockets and more. But I'm not buying into the cult. Starlink is borderline for me. I can see the utility. But the idea that space can be commercialized with such total disregard for what effectively is our largest commons is simply wrong to me.
These aren't visible to human naked eye. Just try and go see them. They already cover the sky in a grid with one of them above the horizon everywhere at all times but just with low density at the moment. I've tried several times and they are not visible.
> So, let's stop the clock for a bit until we have a much better idea of what the impact of all this littering will be
This isn't littering. These are controlled satellites that can be de-orbited at will at any time (and several have been already that had some technical problems with them).
> However, there is no way to become a space faring civilization without putting lots of things in space, period. I want to see 1,000,000x more objects in space, including much larger ones.
But you can have many of those things - majority, if you want - not in an orbit around the Earth. Even farther than GSO, for example.
> imagine over 100,000x the humans, artists, friendship, science, and love.
Humanity isn't only love and friendship. Not to mention that currently we're on a trajectory for the peak population in this century - not quadrillions currently, not even 10 billions. Maybe when we at least colonize Solar system better...
> I just don't think that as society a relatively fringe hobby should stop the progress of humanity.
Astronomy is arguably the first science - that is, brought humanity to asking and thinking about world at large. It's important.
Because the idea that companies care about NOTHING other than money is generally false with exceptions of a few companies that think like that. (Notably they're not pubicly held, they don't have public quarterly revenue targets and they're not required to make profit for investors.)
SpaceX wasn't aware that they would cause an impact. SpaceX started working on solutions as soon as they heard issues. Companies are not omnipotent. Hanlon's razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".
I extremely dislike this moral code and Milton Friedman and its second order effects on our society. But that's the frame of mind most people who go through US MBA are indoctrined with.
Regarding Musk, he has proven to have this Randian Hero mentality. He might care about astronomy, and he might just think, who gives a f*CK we're going to Mars.
That's why democracy is important, it reduces the variance of impact these bigger than life type personalities can induce.
I think it's crazy a single person can decide for.all of us how the future will look like.
It's not a moral obligation at all. Corporations don't have morals because they're not alive. The people running them certainly do however. It turns out that people who work in the space industry happen to like space and don't want to ruin the view of it. Elon Musk allegedly specifically tells investors that invest that if they're expecting to get a return on their investment anytime soon to not invest.
> I extremely dislike this moral code and Milton Friedman and its second order effects on our society. But that's the frame of mind most people who go through US MBA are indoctrined with.
What are you even talking about. SpaceX isn't run by MBAs. It's run by engineers.
My personal opinion is that industries self-regulate well as long as they are not given obscene incentives for narrow near-term profit at the expense of the long term. Luckily SpaceX is not a public company so they have no need to worry about the near term.
First, of course its good for companies to reduce the negative externalities of things in space (paint, shades, etc). I think there is near universal agreement here, including from SpaceX.
However, there is no way to become a space faring civilization without putting lots of things in space, period. I want to see 1,000,000x more objects in space, including much larger ones.
If we truly become space faring, we have the matter and resources to have a quadrillion humans living in comfort (likely in large rotating space habitats like"O Neil Cylinders"). This is the kind of dream we could have, imagine over 100,000x the humans, artists, friendship, science, and love. We can simultaneously make earth an ecological paradise, with most of the planet reserved for nature.
This "anti-satellite" movement seems to generally have 4 kinds of attacks against the satellites: 1) The satellites "impede my rights to view the sky". The implication is that anyone who attempts to build in their "view to infinity" violates their rights. This seems like an extremely presumptuous statement, like they own trillions of miles. This also doesn't match the current legal framework of any country (nobody needs your permission to fly over your house in aircraft or space). 2) The usecase of these satellites is bad because they are "like cell towers". Getting low cost internet access for the planet is IMO an extremely good thing, one of the best things for the poor. 3) The satellites will kill astronomy. This is absurd, we will have much better astronomy if we are a space fairing species with cheap space access and many things/expertise in space and giant telescopes outside our atmosphere. It may kill amateur astronomy from earth eventually, but I just don't think that as society a relatively fringe hobby should stop the progress of humanity. Many hobbies have been killed over time. I personally think this will inspire more people to look to space, and have the opposite effect. 4) We should not put things into space, and we should look to reduce our impact on the universe. This also manifests itself in those that want to see population reduction on Earth. I believe consciousness is better than lifeless rock. I say this as a human and a parent who has brought consciousness into the world.
Lets upgrade our dreams, take to the stars, and make the universe a more interesting place.