Having many thousands of new satellites from multiple players in a competitive space forcing them to get as many up there as possible as quickly as possible isn't any better. I think this many satellites will be the demise of the LEO orbits, not to mention...how the heck do you get a spacecraft through that many satellites out to...wherever, the moon, mars, etc?
Obviously I wasn't saying more satellite constellations are better. As usual, I'm just trying to educate people about the reality. "Deal with reality, or it will deal with you".
Two issues. The demise of the low earth orbits will be the big deal. Shooting something through, much less, space starts to get big out there. The orbitral debris mitigation plans are supposed to handle the issue.
My concern is suppressed by a fact and an implication. A government that sees no value in stopping people from blasting carbon into space is pretty unlikely to worry about stopping people from blasting satellites into space. The former is much more of a problem, and vastly harder to solve. Good schemes for cleaning out debris are being developed. They're vastly cheaper, vastly more technologically feasible than schemes for scrubbing carbon out, vastly less likely to create unintended consequences.
Can you imagine pulling together mass public protests (many hundreds of thousands of people) of satellite constellations? Starting a movement against them? It hasn't worked for carbon.
I prioritize my many concerns these days. One filter is "how many people care about this?" On satellite constellations, I suspect the answer is not many. And I'm imagine they're pretty evenly split, pro, and anti. Mostly they want to know that stuff is not going to drop on their head, and that's being engineered.
It's not that this isn't worthy of concern. It's that there are bigger fish to fry.
Edited by bobzeq25, 27 May 2019 - 11:55 AM.