331–334 of 334 posts
Fortunately, no one owns space, so we don’t have to listen to these decels.
That'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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That'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.
I 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.
It upsets me that an establishment like ESO would grip on the “data centers in space” narrative given the absurd physics constraints.
Should 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It 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.
>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 j…
A decision of whether or not to destroy the dark night sky globally should be made at a societal level beforehand. Instead the path of maximum expected profit for a few people was taken instead of carefully considering the implications, alternatives, and mitigations.