On first glance (pre-caffeine) it looks like there are a bunch of mansplainers doing math to defend Reflect Orbital in my mentions.
-
Please forgive the ignorant question: Are we sure that Reflect Orbital or their insurers would even be liable under current statutes and treaties?
@DaveMWilburn not only RO, but the regulator that approved them because they know about the possibility of the eye damage. It will be interesting to see how many other countries file for injunctions based on the because presumably, this stupid thing will cause eye damage all over the world
@sundogplanets -
@sundogplanets ah regrettably they say they would only be able to find something that's public, and this info wouldn't be something that's public. However, they tell me it's entirely possible - even probable - Reflect wouldn't yet have bought third party liability insurance, given they've only just received approval. They would have to have it prior to launch yes, but not required before getting approval.
@http_error_418 would they at least need to have an insurance quote to support any financials or regulations required as part of the approval process? (Asking because I have seen this enumerated in CO2 storage permits, not because I know anything about space.)
-
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
I'm going to laugh if Earth gets nuked by aliens after the blinding device is mistaken for a weapon.Yes, I know this isn't an exceptionally intelligent thought or post. But it did make me chuckle a little at the idea.
-
@michael_w_busch @sundogplanets
The central challenge here is that space might be different in statutes and treaty. My (possibly mistaken) impression is that companies aren't liable for damages from space debris under international treaties. But I don't know how that would impact liability for non-debris-related damage from space-based equipment malfunctions. Maybe the company is liable, or maybe you have to fight the United States Government, or maybe this stupid company can just blind people from space and there's nothing you can do about it. I just don't know.
@DaveMWilburn @michael_w_busch @sundogplanets there's a significant difference between accidental debris and deliberate negligence
-
@sundogplanets I am wondering: is space sabotage already a thing? If not, these reflectors really ask for it.
@nofollownoindex @sundogplanets
What happens WHEN (not if) the Russian hackers take control of the panels and aim all of them at Washington. This assuming that we have an administration at a future date that is no longer a Russian asset.
-
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 150+ legal systems. Pick one.
-
@sundogplanets
I'm going to laugh if Earth gets nuked by aliens after the blinding device is mistaken for a weapon.Yes, I know this isn't an exceptionally intelligent thought or post. But it did make me chuckle a little at the idea.
@Cassandra_Complex I'd read that scifi book
-
@DaveMWilburn not only RO, but the regulator that approved them because they know about the possibility of the eye damage. It will be interesting to see how many other countries file for injunctions based on the because presumably, this stupid thing will cause eye damage all over the world
@sundogplanets@LynnD @sundogplanets I'm not sure this specific regulator in question, the FCC, has jurisdiction over visual spectrum space-based blinding, just RF spectrum. I don't know that we have a regulator governing that.
-
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
Me trying to get away from the space sun beam after ratio'ing a tech bro. -
@LynnD @sundogplanets I'm not sure this specific regulator in question, the FCC, has jurisdiction over visual spectrum space-based blinding, just RF spectrum. I don't know that we have a regulator governing that.
N.B., I'm not defending or excusing the absolute bullshit that's happening here.
-
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 How _does_ RO intend to make money?
I highly suspect this is a fine example of the underpants gnomes.
-
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.
