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?
People can be - and have been - held liable for accidentally dazzling airplane pilots with laser pointers.
So there is at least some relevant precedent if Reflect Orbital should actually launch the things and randomly cause eye damage.
-
Please forgive the ignorant question: Are we sure that Reflect Orbital or their insurers would even be liable under current statutes and treaties?
We were sure that roe v wade was precedent upon precedent and they ended it anyway so I'm not sure it matters if something is illegal on the books for it to become illegal when it's first brought to trial. I'm sure a good case can be made for holding the perpetrators accountable
-
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 buncha dicks with dicks being dicks, as the prophecies foretold. But seriously, why guys? Piles of reflective shit in LEO is a bad idea, regardless of the reason for it, and beaming sunlight down from orbit is absurd.
-
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've e-mailed them. Will let you know if and when they reply.
-
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 they've admitted to a risk that could cause material harm to people engaged in a normal activity (and suggests that it could damage expensive scientific instruments as well)
Regardless of explicit laws on the particular topic that might expose them to civil suits that could get expensive.
And that could be the case even if they hadn't admitted to it.
-
@sundogplanets I've e-mailed them. Will let you know if and when they reply.
@rey Worth a try, thanks!
-
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 Please so not forget the #fediblock hashtag, so we know whom to block.
-
@sundogplanets fuck Reflect Orbital.
so let's fund a giant laser that is able to disturb this thing via radiation pressure
-
@sundogplanets What kind of insurance do you even carry when one of the possible (likely?) outcomes of your business include "Will make Earth's orbit inaccessible for decades" or "Will cause globally widespread ecological disaster" or "Will cause irreparable harm to Earth's ozone layer radiation shield that's necessary for life to exist on the only known habitable world in the universe."
Because Geico ain't cutting it.
@Legit_Spaghetti @sundogplanets
No insurance. US gov is responsible, right?
-
@Legit_Spaghetti @sundogplanets
No insurance. US gov is responsible, right?
@knud @Legit_Spaghetti I know when AST SpaceMobile lost one of their awful giant satellites from a launch failure a few weeks ago, they said insurance would pay for it, so whatever. So these companies definitely have SOME kind of insurance.
-
@knud @Legit_Spaghetti I know when AST SpaceMobile lost one of their awful giant satellites from a launch failure a few weeks ago, they said insurance would pay for it, so whatever. So these companies definitely have SOME kind of insurance.
@knud @Legit_Spaghetti the US gov't is only liable for damages that happen on the ground due to reentries in other countries (according to the Space Liability Convention). Does eye damage count for that? Veeerrrryyyy interesting question...
-
@knud @Legit_Spaghetti I know when AST SpaceMobile lost one of their awful giant satellites from a launch failure a few weeks ago, they said insurance would pay for it, so whatever. So these companies definitely have SOME kind of insurance.
@sundogplanets @Legit_Spaghetti
But only for the value of the sat, to rebuild it or also for damages of ... <gestures at everything>?
-
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 have a contact who can almost certainly find out. Whether they are able to disclose is a different question, will let you know in a day or so.
-
@knud @Legit_Spaghetti the US gov't is only liable for damages that happen on the ground due to reentries in other countries (according to the Space Liability Convention). Does eye damage count for that? Veeerrrryyyy interesting question...
@sundogplanets @Legit_Spaghetti
Uncharted territory.
Similarly unclear whether it's a crime to take my 500kW laser to fry Reflect Orbital sat's communication antenna...
-
@sundogplanets @Legit_Spaghetti
Uncharted territory.
Similarly unclear whether it's a crime to take my 500kW laser to fry Reflect Orbital sat's communication antenna...
@knud @sundogplanets @Legit_Spaghetti It should be at least reciprocal. If they can shine light at me destroying my telescope, I can shine light at them destroying their satellite.
-
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 am wondering: is space sabotage already a thing? If not, these reflectors really ask for it.
-
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
the answer comes to mind as, no. There is not likely to be a simple answer to the question of who insures. If the business is entirely owned and operated and conducted within one area then one insurance company might insure it, or one insurance might insure some of it and might farm out insurance coverage to commercial insurers for catastrophic loss coverage, or not. Expand the question to a business which is conducted outside of a single region of insurance coverage and then you can add optional headache of corporate legal team looking for liability loopholes in wording of insurance policy coverage, wording of international exemptions and laws, wording of space treaties, and any past precedent of proving strict liability and shared liability. Oh, and from what I was told many decades ago, the name of an insured is treated by the insurance company just like a trade secret. You can ask, maybe they would brag, but it's not a simple answer and there are places where it is legal to be self-insured and there is the possibility that some shady business would consider bankruptcy cheaper than insurance and stupidly think the corporate veil would save corporate officers from severally and collectively being liable. -
@knud @sundogplanets @Legit_Spaghetti It should be at least reciprocal. If they can shine light at me destroying my telescope, I can shine light at them destroying their satellite.
@hannorein @sundogplanets @Legit_Spaghetti
Sounds fair!
-
@sundogplanets I have a contact who can almost certainly find out. Whether they are able to disclose is a different question, will let you know in a day or so.
@http_error_418 Thank you for trying!
-
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 genuinely don't understand how anyone can think Reflect Orbital is a good idea. Ignoring the impacts to astronomy, and the orbital mechanics and space traffic (you definitely know more about those than me anyway), the fundamental problem with global warming is that earth is retaining too much energy. How is adding more energy to that situation a good idea?
