Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#41

Post by Androider »

api wrote: post #38
danielvf wrote: post #26

This is utterly, utterly overblown. The Space Station is thousands of times bigger and throws back a hundred times more light than this will. Every evening, for most of the populated world, dozens of brighter satellites than this go overhead. I just checked the orbits for my evening here - 57 brighter satellites. But what about the flashing? Well, we've got those already too. The old, awesome Iridium satellites have…

It's the precedent. We do not want space based ads.

Do you want space colonies, commercial stations and activity? Cause I don't think you'll get one without the other.

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#42

Post by ceejayoz »

dingaling wrote: post #28
jvandonsel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but the point of those satellites is not to make a flash in the sky. The whole point of the disco ball is to dazzle.

Actually the older Iridium satellites were intended to make a flash in the sky. The three aluminium antennas were highly-polished for no other reason than visibility; free publicity. There were some thermal benefits but not significant. The later blocks of satellites have a different antenna design and do not reflect as much. A more sigificant astronomical impact of Iridium as a tangent, is that their transmissions o…

Do you have a cite on it being intentionally polished to create flares? The new generation has a smaller, redesigned antenna, but I can't find anything on the original being a conscious design choice instead of just a side-effect of "we want to reflect EM as well as possible".

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#43

Post by donatj »

yAnonymous wrote: post #39
danielvf wrote: post #26

This is utterly, utterly overblown. The Space Station is thousands of times bigger and throws back a hundred times more light than this will. Every evening, for most of the populated world, dozens of brighter satellites than this go overhead. I just checked the orbits for my evening here - 57 brighter satellites. But what about the flashing? Well, we've got those already too. The old, awesome Iridium satellites have…

No. It's good to criticize this now, before everyone starts doing it. I really don't want ad banners in the sky twenty years from now.

I cannot wait for the day when everyone has equal access to launching their disco balls into space.

I have one in my basement just taking up space, it should be taking up space.

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#44

Post by api »

Androider wrote: post #41
api wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the precedent. We do not want space based ads.

Do you want space colonies, commercial stations and activity? Cause I don't think you'll get one without the other.

Sure. A house is not an ad. What I don't want is a malt liquor billboard in orbit.

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#45

Post by jerf »

gooseus wrote: post #8
nkrisc wrote: post #2

Do you want regulations? This is how you get regulations. Once low Earth orbit is easily accessible to anyone, what can be done? There are all kinds of intentional and unintentional misuses of such a capability.

Do we not have a global regulating body for what people can put in LEO? Cause I'm gonna have to say yes on this one. A 9-month occasional bright light in the sky is a brief annoyance for astronomers, but avoiding the Kessler Syndrome should be a global imperative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

The forces that make Kesser Syndrome an issue in high orbits work in reverse in low orbits. Two objects in an otherwise fairly stable orbit that collide with each other in LEO will break into pieces, each of which will far more rapidly encounter atmospheric drag (much more surface area / volume on the fragments) and deorbit than the original objects would have. Instead of a chain reaction mess, you get a self-cleaning mess.

I have to say "otherwise fairly stable" because technically, there is no stable low Earth orbit because atmospheric drag will drag down any orbiting object within a human timespan.

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#46

Post by danielvf »

chillingeffect wrote: post #32

Some comments have intoned "it's not that bright," but from the article "It is expected to become the brightest object in the night sky for nine months" Can anyone shed some information on this? I know if someone made it difficult for me t oget my planned work done for the next nine months, my boss and I would be pretty ticked off.

There's no possible way this is the brightest thing in the night sky - it's simply not that big, and most of the light that hits it will not be going towards you because of the facets.

The only number I've seen puts it at 4.0 magnitude when flashing. That's hard to see with the naked eye from a US city, and there are about 500 stars brighter than that.

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#47

Post by chimmy_chonga »

danielvf wrote: post #26

This is utterly, utterly overblown. The Space Station is thousands of times bigger and throws back a hundred times more light than this will. Every evening, for most of the populated world, dozens of brighter satellites than this go overhead. I just checked the orbits for my evening here - 57 brighter satellites. But what about the flashing? Well, we've got those already too. The old, awesome Iridium satellites have…

Those served an actual purpose though. They weren't just shoved into space just to say, "hey look at what we did". That's the point they're making. Don't pollute space just because you can.

EDIT: typos

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#48

Post by salvar »

Androider wrote: post #41
api wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the precedent. We do not want space based ads.

Do you want space colonies, commercial stations and activity? Cause I don't think you'll get one without the other.

We can't have space colonies or commercial stations without space advertising?

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#49

Post by sp332 »

donatj wrote: post #33
SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you want regulations? This is how you get regulations. A finite resource, great cost necessary to access it, danger of catastrophic failure when things collide. Long-lasting consequences of such failure. I'd expect regulation in this scenario. It seems inevitable and necessary.

I’d hardly call space a finite resource.

The visible expanse of the night sky is finite. Low-earth orbits are certainly finite.

Re: 'Space graffiti': astronomers angry over launch of fake star into sky

#50

Post by sp332 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #36

This has me thinking about how absurd privacy/protection of vision can be. If I stand in my apartment and face my photon receptors towards the apartment across the street, place some carefully constructed glass lenses in front of them, and receive photons from the sun bouncing off the surface of a pretty specimen, that is pretty universally abhorred behaviour. Of course this is absurdly reductionist. But interesting,…

Privacy is a social construct. Its definition mainly depends on how people feel about it. That doesn't make it not useful, I mean that maybe we should try to protect our experience of the night sky even if the reasons aren't too rigorous.
Post reply on HN