Oh no, not again

Saw this news item:

https://www.universetoday.com/140246...-a-few-months/

I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the launch of
such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure they have
restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites with mirrors above a
certain size.

John Savard

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 15:36:47 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

Saw this news item:

https://www.universetoday.com/140246...-a-few-months/

I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the launch of
such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure they have
restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites with mirrors above a
certain size.

I don't think there are likely any restrictions on the capabilities of
private observation satellites. And other restrictions are based on
impact to other assets. Something in low orbit that will decay in less
than a year is unlikely to run into many roadblocks.

On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 18:36:50 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
Saw this news item:

https://www.universetoday.com/140246...-a-few-months/

I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the launch of
such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure they have
restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites with mirrors above a
certain size.

John Savard

S--- Nevada museum responsible for highlighting it. Figures this garish crap would come in-part from Nevada, home of Las Vegas.

Quadibloc wrote:


I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the
launch of such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure
they have restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites
with mirrors above a certain size.

In what way is this contraption worse than one Iridium satellite?
And there are 88 of them, right?

--
I recommend Macs to my friends, and Windows machines
to those whom I don't mind billing by the hour

Quadibloc a couché sur son écran :
Saw this news item:

https://www.universetoday.com/140246...-a-few-months/

I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the launch
of such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure they have
restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites with mirrors
above a certain size.

John Savard

So SPACE is US property ?
I thought only the moon was.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 22:16:57 +0200, (Anders
Eklöf) wrote:

Quadibloc wrote:


I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the
launch of such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure
they have restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites
with mirrors above a certain size.

In what way is this contraption worse than one Iridium satellite?
And there are 88 of them, right?

One thing I teach my students when we hit engineering is about
harm/benefit analysis. Yes, Iridium satellites can potentially
interfere with an astronomical observation. But they also provide a
massive communications benefit. Is the benefit of something placed
just for somebody's aesthetic gratification worth the various harms it
can cause?

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 3:17:20 PM UTC-6, bilou wrote:
Quadibloc a couché sur son écran :

I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the launch
of such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure they have
restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites with mirrors
above a certain size.

So SPACE is US property ?
I thought only the moon was.

No, but if the U.S. had such laws, they would have at least hindered this launch
by a U.S. artist. It is certainly true that other countries that launch
satellites into space ought to have such policies - if they do not already. From
this news item, it could only be inferred that the United States was lacking
such a restriction.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-6, Anders Eklöf wrote:

In what way is this contraption worse than one Iridium satellite?
And there are 88 of them, right?

Aside from Iridium satellites - and the ISS - being visible from the Earth, and
aside from them at least serving a useful purpose, the article gave the
impression that this proposed artistic project would be more *obviously* visible
from the Earth than anything existing other than the Moon.

I did not notice anything specific about its brightness, and I didn't think to
check and compare it to the brightness of satellites already out there.

John Savard

On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 6:41:32 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 2:17:04 PM UTC-6, Anders Eklöf wrote:

In what way is this contraption worse than one Iridium satellite?
And there are 88 of them, right?

Aside from Iridium satellites - and the ISS - being visible from the Earth, and
aside from them at least serving a useful purpose, the article gave the
impression that this proposed artistic project would be more *obviously* visible
from the Earth than anything existing other than the Moon.

I did not notice anything specific about its brightness, and I didn't think to
check and compare it to the brightness of satellites already out there.

Ah, it's a 30-metre diamond-shaped balloon, and it's as bright as the whole Big
Dipper.

And I see that this is less bright than an Iridium flare, which can be seen in
the daytime - it is the result of the antennas focusing multiple reflections on
the same spot on the Earth, so at least there is a low chance of one, it doesn't
happen merely because one of those satellites is visible in the sky.

And the ISS is certainly reflective and much larger than 30 metres.

John Savard

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 22:16:57 +0200, (Anders
Eklöf) wrote:

Quadibloc wrote:


I'm surprised that the United States doesn't have laws prohibiting the
launch of such payloads by private launch operators. After all, I'm sure
they have restrictions on launching, say, Earth observation satellites
with mirrors above a certain size.

In what way is this contraption worse than one Iridium satellite?
And there are 88 of them, right?

One thing I teach my students when we hit engineering is about
harm/benefit analysis. Yes, Iridium satellites can potentially
interfere with an astronomical observation. But they also provide a
massive communications benefit. Is the benefit of something placed
just for somebody's aesthetic gratification worth the various harms it
can cause?


The Iridium satellites are being replaced by ones which don’t flare.