Hacker News Reader

Comment by olivierduval | Hacker News Reader

Because you think that being able to read twitter between two ads is "more useful" than watching a pure night sky ????

Maybe you should think about what is really "useful" for you... and what other people find "useful"

You can't see starlink satellites with the naked eye once they are in their operational orbit. I'm sure many people find it useful to be able to attend school: https://www.pcmag.com/news/native-american-tribe-gets-early-...

So what is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgysWWwESfU&t=2s ?

And it's only with 700 satellites around the world right now...

This is shortly after launch while the satellites are still tumbling. Within a few days they align themselves so that their sunshields reduce their brightness and over the next few months they will raise them selves to their operational orbit.

I think people who have night sky views pure enough for satellites to become a nuisance is probably in the global minority. One might even call it a privileged pov, given that most rural inhabitants of this planet struggle for basic network connectivity needed for their livelihood and the education of their children. I respect your sentiment, though - ultimately, the question is not whether we should do it; it’s who’s gonna stop us.

Well... bad night sky is really a problem in cities... where there's already fiber. But in most rural area (at least in France), the night sky is still "pure enough"...

I understand basic network connectivity problem, but I'm not sure that satellites are the right answer wrt the impacts

"ultimately, the question is not whether we should do it; it’s who’s gonna stop us". You're right... and I can't anything else but law... coming a world agreement on how to manage space around the world

Reply on news.ycombinator.com