On first glance (pre-caffeine) it looks like there are a bunch of mansplainers doing math to defend Reflect Orbital in my mentions.
-
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 But... but they have math!
-
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 Do not engage, block them, there is no point in allowing them further access
-
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.
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...
-
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 Strength to your Block button. Thanks for keeping up the good fight. I’m sending messages to my electeds here in the US asking for both action against Reflect Orbital, and an investigation into the FCC about their mishandling of the comment process.
-
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...
Oh, that is a REALLY good question.
-
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 Good morning back!
(I'm going to do math today, it's going to be very boring reagent calculations and no one wants that in their mentions lest they fall asleep)
-
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...
Please forgive the ignorant question: Are we sure that Reflect Orbital or their insurers would even be liable under current statutes and treaties?
-
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 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.
-
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 Oooh, more people to block, lol.
-
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 fuck Reflect Orbital.
-
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.
