logoalt Hacker News

leptonslast Wednesday at 10:45 PM2 repliesview on HN

>I don't know how to sell the urgency of this predicament. You can have as many satellites as you want, a million uncoordinated bodies, at 400km because direct collision potential scales with (satellite count / orbital lifespan) ^2 . At 1000km, satellites decay so slowly we are already too crowded; we have already overused the space. We are speed-running the end of the space age and we are doing it to save a small number of dollars and to avoid a small amount of diplomacy.

This sounds like the most first-world-problem ever. It realistically affects practically nobody alive, nor would it ever. Most people will live and die on the planet's surface and never visit space, nor do they need to. There aren't too many space-based services that are really necessary to life on earth. Nobody really needs internet in the middle of nowhere. Sure, it's nice to have, but that's a first world problem that few people have.


Replies

chrisnightlast Thursday at 12:09 AM

Having satellites orbiting the planet is more beneficial than just solving the first-world problem of “knowing where you are” or “having Internet”.

NASA has done a large amount of work to use satellite data to forecast and then work to improve agricultural yields covering the entire planet. It definitely isn’t necessary, but to dismiss the improvement that has been made is crazy, and I’d hardly call “feeding people around the world” a first-world luxury given by space travel.

show 1 reply
nwiswelllast Wednesday at 10:52 PM

> It realistically affects practically nobody alive

Do people in the Global South not use GPS or consume weather forecasts?

show 1 reply