upvote
That’s a very reductionist and dismissive take. Also it’s rude.

I’m an occasional astrophotographer, and the baseline of photos you can took are absolutely breathtaking now. Seeing this destroyed in real time is depressing.

I used to see a rare flyby of a satellite in the complete dark, but now it’s much more, and besides my personal annoyance, many people much more serious about sky and space are rightfully angry. Maybe you can ask them to grow up, too.

Not every progress is good progress. We should understand that by now. You should understand that better than all of us combined, since you’re apparently grown up, way more than us.

reply
>Not every progress is good progress

And you're the judge of this based on your likes and hobbies?

Anyway, I agree. Just ask the people blocking the HS2 or CaHSR about how sad the train plowing through their communities makes them feel. We need to tear down all trains, not every progress is good progress

reply
Would you say it might at least be fair to discuss how things that affect everyone are decided upon or how externalities are compensated for? Or should it be free for all?
reply
Are there not processes in place, with the FCC?

The top comment here is someone lamenting how depressing it is that supposedly a single person owns the night sky.

Another one is asking if we will be the last generation to see the night sky.

reply
If there is a lot of change to how the night sky looks like could perhaps be worth a discussion on if the process is still the right one (and if it is global enough).
reply
That is fair enough.

Yet with how political and dramatized the discussion around this is even on this website here, I fear that any opportunity to block or delay more SpaceX satellites will be used to the fullest.

I am concerned that this might hinder innovation. If you involve other countries, would this not be likely to become an extremely hard and slow regulatory process?

I understand that SpaceX's mitigation methods have been effective, and that the current satellites are on average around the limit of being visible to the naked eye under a very dark sky.

Personally I am eager to see more of these satellites enable 5G like cellular coverage outdoors in rural areas.

Perhaps I am more open to change in the appearance of nature than others. Some oppose also wind turbines in our mountains, where I usually think that they look cool and typically make the landscape more interesting.

reply
I feel similarly. For example, when I see wind farms it gives me hope that we are moving towards more sustainable fuels. It also makes me feel like I've lived long enough to see the future.

With that said, I think we should have honest conversations about the benefits vs. the impacts, but also realize nothing is stagnant, not even nature.

reply
I don't have the answers here, I a afraid, but not having at least the broader discussion might also not help (not sure what is already happening there, though).
reply
> Are there not processes in place, with the FCC?

The impartiality of those processes is a bit in question when the prime mover here is so far in bed with the executive that he gets to go up on stage during inauguration to sieg a few heils.

(And is then given a free hand to fire whomever he wants from the federal government.)

reply
SpaceX has launched satellite under a previous government and even got them to fund deployment.

The ITU has also approved SpaceX actions.

reply
It's not reductionist - planes and their vapor trails are a constant presence in the sky there and in many places. Far more obvious than even these 5-10x as many satellites will be. I'm sure there are cloud photographers who are bothered by plane but, as with Starlink, there are people getting good value from them. There are even photographers embracing them. I think you see the world how you're familiar with as good or at least acceptable but anything different as bad.
reply
People are louder about things that have not yet taken hold because it's easier to stop them. The constant rumble of airplanes in the sky is a problem actually, but it's far more entrenched. Why is it difficult to understand that people notice and care about negative externalities of so-called "progress"?
reply
The post he was replying to is the reductionist and dismissive take.

And yes progress is good progress.

reply
> And yes progress is good progress.

Many weapons designers thought they were making war “more humane” by creating weapons that killed faster and more decisively.

Haber, on chemical warfare: “The gas weapons are not at all more cruel than the flying iron pieces; on the contrary, the fraction of fatal gas diseases is comparatively smaller, the mutilations are missing.”

reply
> Many weapons designers thought they were making war “more humane” by creating weapons that killed faster and more decisively.

Do you think the world would be better off if we still killed ourselves with swords instead of drones? The result is the same. A death is a death. The real cause of wars is not "better weapons".

reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
In that case, isn't the most logical and reasonable way to fight wars would be to immediately use city-killing nuclear weapons?
reply
deleted
reply
What happened to you that you became that dismissive?

Was it not a big issue for you that aeroplanes were flying overhead?

Whos responsibility was it that you were living were you lived?

I guess there is a small difference between being able to choose or parents have choosen for you vs. everyone on the whole planet needs to endure it.

reply
We could pass this user forward to a psychology forum for evaluation, I think they'd have a field day with these types of people.

A lot to unpack

/s - obviously

reply
deleted
reply
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#comments

reply
Dude, are you okay?
reply