211–220 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We got used to companies abusing processes and not being punished. Just look at how all Big Tech companies systematically break laws and happily pays the fines for these crimes.
But if they pay the fine, haven't they been punished? Whether punishment was sufficient is a different question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
SpaceX as a company definitely cares for risk. I think you are falling for Musk's media braggadoccio, but if you look at safety record of real world SpaceX operations, it is excellent. They had no human fatalities ever, which is remarkable for a 19 year old aerospace company (obviously there weren't many launches with people, but accidents happen on surface, too; this is heavy industry after all). And they haven't lo…
Both Tesla and SpaceX have lost employees in small aircraft accidents. While not industrial in nature the push to rush and be places at times should be counted.
To actually start blaming the employers with some level of plausibility, I think you would have to show that rate of small aircraft accidents for their employees is significantly higher than average for similar unaffiliated group of youngish men who like to fly small aircraft.
There is some background nonzero level of death in flying small aircraft (or suicide, alcoholism or other common ills). Unless it can be shown that the levels of such ills among employees of some Acme.com is significantly higher than background noise, it is not fair to assign blame to Acme.com.
Even then there can be confounding factors, but that is a different story.
From a business perspective though, it's absolutely bonkers to see Amazon wasting such an immense amount of resources in an attempt to slow the competition down, rather than speed their own up.
It's like watching a child flip the monopoly board after realising they can't buy any more properties and remain on top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual…
>not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense Isn't Musk the guy who crashed bitcoin after making a pile of money claiming it was dirty? How much pollution does just one of his mega-sized moon-mission rockets eject? Just for his personal (yes) entertainment. Rich sportsmen buy expensive cars. Super- rich businessmen play with rocket launches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree: space is a SHARED place... why should some US corp. be able to pollute it ????? And why should US citizen ONLY have something to say about it ???? I can understand that the US may decide what is above its territory, but I surely dont want to MY french nights with Musk or Bezos satellites... and moreover without my consent !
While there are some rudimentary frameworks for collaboration in space. It is still free for all. Sovereignty in space above 50 km is complex and not really well established, countries have differing claims like bogota declaration etc. Most countries launch satellites they don't necessarily tell each other. There is nothing stopping a French company from doing the same as spaceX. Infact OneWeb is owned by UK governme…
Can't we learn from history and - for once - try to talk and agree on common rules and management together BEFORE doing something to a world shared resource ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you think that being able to read twitter between two ads is "more useful" than watching a pure night sky ???? Maybe you should think about what is really "useful" for you... and what other people find "useful"
You can't see starlink satellites with the naked eye once they are in their operational orbit. I'm sure many people find it useful to be able to attend school: https://www.pcmag.com/news/native-american-tribe-gets-early-...
And it's only with 700 satellites around the world right now...
I could care less about the attitude or acumen of Jeff or Elon personally. From a business perspective though, it's absolutely bonkers to see Amazon wasting such an immense amount of resources in an attempt to slow the competition down, rather than speed their own up. It's like watching a child flip the monopoly board after realising they can't buy any more properties and remain on top.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you think that being able to read twitter between two ads is "more useful" than watching a pure night sky ???? Maybe you should think about what is really "useful" for you... and what other people find "useful"
I think people who have night sky views pure enough for satellites to become a nuisance is probably in the global minority. One might even call it a privileged pov, given that most rural inhabitants of this planet struggle for basic network connectivity needed for their livelihood and the education of their children. I respect your sentiment, though - ultimately, the question is not whether we should do it; it’s who’…
I understand basic network connectivity problem, but I'm not sure that satellites are the right answer wrt the impacts
"ultimately, the question is not whether we should do it; it’s who’s gonna stop us". You're right... and I can't anything else but law... coming a world agreement on how to manage space around the world
Earlier quoted context omitted.
~2d was intended to imply effectively 2d for human activities, even airspace is probably closer to a layered 2d cake than true 3d like deeper space. LEO may be closer to an extension of airspace due to orbits and gravity. Still, due to the exponential growth with respect to the radius, there is significant room in LEO compared to anything terrestrial.
Quadratic growth, not exponential growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it does have material impact on others. The Starlink constellations in this proposal are large, and any future development by others will have to account for the orbits of these potential constellations. That's 30k new objects to plan for, and with two configurations at play, that means accounting for essentially 60k objects in motion, effectively doubling the work someone would have to do to plan their deploymen…
It's like, well, land — if somebody builds on it, nobody else would be able to. They'd need to build nearby, or elsewhere. It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits.
No, but it is worth noting that there are about 7000 satellites in orbit right now, of which a little over half are actually operational[1]. Starlink intends to increase that number 10 fold by launching 30,000 of their own. It will have a significant impact on which orbits are available, it will cause extra work for everyone who operates in space, and (in my opinion) the benefit of "broadband internet everywhere on Earth" isn't so big that people shouldn't think about whether it's worth it. Especially given the fact there are other competitors in the market who'll be wanting to launch their own constellations too.
We could end up with many tens of thousands of internet provider satellites, and the market probably isn't big enough for more than a couple of companies providing that service. At the very least there should be rules demanding that each company makes their satellites interoperable with all their competitors, so if one company withdraws from the market someone else can take over their orbiting hardware so we're not left with immense amounts of space junk.
[1] https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/how-many-satellites-ar...