International space law contains no limitations for national laws' considering satellites as objects of property rights, provided that such national laws themselves can impose specific rules and limitations, including preliminary approval of the transfer of satellite by a competent national authority. December 2019 via Google
Comments
theHoustonian t1_j8w4n25 wrote
When I moved to Maine from Texas the billboard thing I think I knew about but didn’t think about. After living in Maine for 2+ years… it is another story, I absolutely love it and it is a daily reminder how different my experience is. On the freeway driving to another city, great beautiful serenity. In town, awesome… no unsightly obstacle to worry about when backing out of a parking space or to busy your vision while you try to look down the street at the traffic.
Lol fuck yeah, keep this a thing, I didn’t know how much of a thing is was until I was shown different.
If you value nature, beauty of the land, and just not being constantly pedaled shit from some advertising boardroom then support initiatives to prevent this crap.
c00pdetat t1_j8y8e8n wrote
This specific point is spring my wife and I really enjoyed while in Maine. We are leaving Texas to head to Maine as well!
Fireonpoopdick t1_j8wv5yb wrote
It's like people forget their eyes adjust.
alpha417 t1_j8u8cr6 wrote
...ok?
is this a ChatGPT post?
TheMrGUnit t1_j8ucid1 wrote
Yeah, why does this whole post read so strangely?
k_mainer OP t1_j8uf3v8 wrote
I pasted the response from google on rules for satellites with the reference. My bad for not being clear.
Also, it’s the a confusing statement.
alpha417 t1_j8ulra1 wrote
what-in-the-methamphetamine does this mean?
words are hard
DidDunMegasploded t1_j8usrqu wrote
English knowledge, like patience, is becoming more and more of a virtue.
k_mainer OP t1_j8uenlp wrote
Sorry, no; not a fakebot. Just my fear for the natural world via a random thought.
Video_isms207 t1_j8vwcip wrote
It’s not randomn- ever go outside at 3am and look up. Most of the stars start to move and you start to realize the whole sky is being littered with space trash!
cking9698 t1_j8u8rlm wrote
lol
pm_me_ur_cutie_booty t1_j8ugf3l wrote
This is actually the side plot of Michael Crichton's Next it's all about scientists developing new spaces for advertising, including satellites and genetically engineered animals.
Sea turtles, presented by Mountain Dew.
Yourbubblestink t1_j8ubopz wrote
LOL 😂 it already is an ad! Everyone knows that it is starlink. That’s the advertisement, the light are unnecessary.
derpmcperpenstein t1_j8ugjt8 wrote
The lights are the reflection of the sun ( pretty sure)
bigbluedoor t1_j8umvx6 wrote
military satellites are black and non-reflective. having so many satillites be so visible i think should require the same coating
derpmcperpenstein t1_j8un8us wrote
Starlink is not military. It's for Internet. https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/40527/how-do-the-starlink-satellites-shine
bigbluedoor t1_j8uphso wrote
…I know? re-read my comment
derpmcperpenstein t1_j8uppiy wrote
My bad.
k_mainer OP t1_j8udxns wrote
Exactly. So what’s next on the continuous improvement cycle?
Hot_Salad9000 t1_j8uqcll wrote
Imagine instead of Coca-Cola using sky ads, they just lower the cost of the product? The more I am advertised to, the less I want your product.
This comment was brought to you buy Geico: Fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance.
ns1337 t1_j8we3nv wrote
We here in Maine are incredibly lucky to have access to some of the darkest night skies east of the Mississippi River. I've spent a LOT of time under the stars here and hate the idea of more clusters of satellites zooming around like Starlink. Between that and increasing light pollution, we may not get to share the awe-inspiring experience of a pristine, unspoiled night sky with future generations.
I'm super thankful that the Appalachian Mountain Club has created the Maine Woods Dark Sky Park, and are helping draw attention to the preservation of something a lot of people take for granted. They've got some good info about the importance of dark skies on their website.
saigonk t1_j8ul3dt wrote
Not a fan of Lightspeed Briefs? 😀
kazaskie t1_j8vgftg wrote
I have this shimmer of hope for humanity that once a company decides to put advertisements in space the collective backlash against their foul desecration of nature will put them out of business on the spot
The_Maine_Sam t1_j8wie49 wrote
I don't think this is a real reason for concern. There has already been lots of push back due to Starlink satellites which has led to a lot of attention to the issue. Future Starlink satellites are planned to be much less intrusive in the night sky and industry wide it is being thought of. Regulation will probably come, too.
Ebomb1 t1_j8wk3y3 wrote
Let's focus on getting video ads off gas pumps first.
Competitive-Bison t1_j8wltj1 wrote
This.
NoShip7475 t1_j8ve2rg wrote
The second amendment fixes this. The tricky part is getting the surface to air stuff.
Competitive-Bison t1_j8w9899 wrote
This.
theora55 t1_j97pe6f wrote
I would contribute to missile launchers if drones and satellites try this. It's bad enough that light pollution has made the night sky impossible for most people to appreciate.
TheMrGUnit t1_j8ucccv wrote
Okay, so you saw 52 satellites.
But there's over 3500 Starlink sats in orbit right now. How often do you see those?
Starlink birds are only easily visible right after they are launched, while the orbit is still being raised. Once they reach their operational orbit, not only are they much further away, but the sun shield is in position to almost completely eliminate them from view. You would only possibly see them at certain times during twilight, and even then only faintly.
Calm down.
k_mainer OP t1_j8udcfa wrote
Ok. Thank you… thumb up…breathing. I’ll take a minute to fact check your response. Meanwhile, do you believe the machine of commerce will not overcome this obstacle?
tehmightyengineer t1_j8vfo52 wrote
In the past 5 years two organizations have launched temporary satellites designed specifically to reflect light. One was somewhat dim and the other wasn't deployed in time due to a government shutdown and could not be seen.
That said, there's generally not been any outcry because nobody has really done anything that disruptive (these sats were small points of light), but it's pretty well understood that the first organization that functionally changes the night sky for some commercial purposes will receive nothing but bad publicity from it. So I doubt anyone will actually do it.
SpaceX sats are specifically designed to not reflect light when in position specifically because of the backlash over the number of them. Currently they still mess with astronomy to some degree but they're not going to be visible when in their final orbit. Most anyone else launching sats will do the same.
BackItUpWithLinks t1_j8uex0g wrote
I wish I could be there to see your face when you read below.
> Right now there are 3,580 starlink satellites. In total, nearly 12,000 satellites are planned to be deployed, with a possible later extension to 42,000.
k_mainer OP t1_j8ufwst wrote
Are you not concerned? I’ve never identified as a Luddite… but am I?
BackItUpWithLinks t1_j8ugc9r wrote
Concerned about what, exactly?
dead-inside69 t1_j8ud7kd wrote
This is some “Sputnik is reading our minds” level lunacy lmao
Nobody is going to advertise in the sky even if it were magically technologically feasible. The negative public reaction would be RABID and the company would suffer.
kaozennrk t1_j8utxlx wrote
A true worry. It seems we don't seem to have any push back on visual annoyance. Signs and sings and signs. Billboards (not in maine). Road signs- our stop signs now all have signs that warn there is stop sign. Cities and towns installing bright digital information screens. More and more you look around and see visual pollution. People walking a beach at night with a headlamp on. It's like we don't have any sense of the disruption on serenity all these thing have. And space won't be any different. (okay rant over)