On first glance (pre-caffeine) it looks like there are a bunch of mansplainers doing math to defend Reflect Orbital in my mentions.
-
On a more serious note, does anyone know how to find out who is insuring Reflect Orbital? Seems like they might want to know the company they're insuring admitted in an official FCC document that they could cause permanent eye damage to people who look at their satellite through a telescope...
@sundogplanets It's a question worth asking in interviews too; and not just eye damage (which is of course worse!); a lot of expensive gear is pointed at the sky and they could damage all of it as well.
-
On a more serious note, does anyone know how to find out who is insuring Reflect Orbital? Seems like they might want to know the company they're insuring admitted in an official FCC document that they could cause permanent eye damage to people who look at their satellite through a telescope...
Seems like there's not much in the way of published details, but I found one article that offers an overview of risk assessments, and they mention several possible carriers in the 'Space Mission' category type...
"... with underwriters, including AXA XL, Munich Re, and Chubb, maintaining specialized aerospace liability teams."
https://dataintelo.com/report/space-mission-insurance-brokerage-market
I assume launch insurance is mandatory, but is there a possibility that some types might be optional or even 'self-insured'?
-
Please forgive the ignorant question: Are we sure that Reflect Orbital or their insurers would even be liable under current statutes and treaties?
@DaveMWilburn @sundogplanets would only US law apply as it was launched from their territory?
-
On a more serious note, does anyone know how to find out who is insuring Reflect Orbital? Seems like they might want to know the company they're insuring admitted in an official FCC document that they could cause permanent eye damage to people who look at their satellite through a telescope...
Stupidest possible Day of the Triffids reboot.
-
On first glance (pre-caffeine) it looks like there are a bunch of mansplainers doing math to defend Reflect Orbital in my mentions. FANTASTIC.
(Editing to add that reading more carefully, I think most of it is actually well-intentioned discussion trying to understand how the hell RO thinks they have any kind of business case. But I am extra grumpy because it's hot. No blocking needed.)
Good morning to everyone except the people defending or funding Reflect Orbital.
@sundogplanets we live in a weird dark mirror world right out of 007 or something now. The Rich, cosplaying as Janus or spectre or whatever, just creating things like goldeneye and people are being like, what a great idea! A gigantic mirror in the sky, what could go wrong? Lol. Except i don’t laugh because it’s not funny. It’s the plot device from a comic book villain written by AI.
-
@sundogplanets We need to find the source of the kool-aid and cut it off, pronto. For all of them. Geez
@StaceyCornelius @sundogplanets Cutting off the source of their oxygen might get more permanent results.
Plus it will reduce the amount of CO2 they produce thus helping reduce global warming.
So a bit of a win-win-win for the planet!
Although, thinking about it, as they decompose they might produce more greenhouse gases. So maybe carbon capture the remains in gas tight sarcophagous?
-
On a more serious note, does anyone know how to find out who is insuring Reflect Orbital? Seems like they might want to know the company they're insuring admitted in an official FCC document that they could cause permanent eye damage to people who look at their satellite through a telescope...
@sundogplanets Insurance ?
️ -
On first glance (pre-caffeine) it looks like there are a bunch of mansplainers doing math to defend Reflect Orbital in my mentions. FANTASTIC.
(Editing to add that reading more carefully, I think most of it is actually well-intentioned discussion trying to understand how the hell RO thinks they have any kind of business case. But I am extra grumpy because it's hot. No blocking needed.)
Good morning to everyone except the people defending or funding Reflect Orbital.
It's a horrible, awful, dangerous idea. Bad for science, bad for national security, bad for the environment, bad for progress, bad for human life.
-
On first glance (pre-caffeine) it looks like there are a bunch of mansplainers doing math to defend Reflect Orbital in my mentions. FANTASTIC.
(Editing to add that reading more carefully, I think most of it is actually well-intentioned discussion trying to understand how the hell RO thinks they have any kind of business case. But I am extra grumpy because it's hot. No blocking needed.)
Good morning to everyone except the people defending or funding Reflect Orbital.
@sundogplanets apologies if my question came across the wrong way. I was merely trying to understand, not explain anything.
-
On a more serious note, does anyone know how to find out who is insuring Reflect Orbital? Seems like they might want to know the company they're insuring admitted in an official FCC document that they could cause permanent eye damage to people who look at their satellite through a telescope...
@sundogplanets I guess it depends if the target area is under the right jurisdiction? Just aim it in an area where companies are already dumping chemical pollution 🤬
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
