On first glance (pre-caffeine) it looks like there are a bunch of mansplainers doing math to defend Reflect Orbital in my mentions.
-
@sundogplanets It's quite possible (likely?) that a broker will spread out the coverage across multiple underwriters. Example:
LLoyd's for pre-launch
AXA XL for launch
Munich Re for in-orbit
Reflect Orbital would need coverage for all 3. Any one part could be prohibitively expensive enough to delay or prohibit launch.@sundogplanets OP already knows how to look up the FCC filings, and FAA doesn't make the required financial responsibility disclosure public. A FOIA request might work, but could take too long to be useful.
-
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 flabbergasted that this project made it beyond the sketching on a napkin stage. Putting aside the public safety concerns, (which we shouldn't) how is it possible that people who are smart enough to put a satellite into space cannot do the math and see this would never create more energy than it took to build and launch?
-
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 TBH it doesn't seem fantastic.
-
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 If Congress has any say, they'll just put warning labels on telescopes and ban amateur astronomy.
-
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 Morning! The orbital sunlight reflector concept is wild on paper, massive engineering and cost challenges, but the idea of on demand solar for high-latitude winters or disaster response has some theoretical appeal.
Skepticism about the business case and deployment risks is fair game though. Space tech hype often outruns the physics and economics. Curious to see if they can make the numbers work at scale. -
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 Interesting point Sweetheart. Space insurers are a niche group, try checking FCC filings or the launch provider's docs for liability coverage requirements. The eye damage risk they flagged is real for big telescope users, even if low probability for one sat. Definitely something insurers should be asking hard questions about.
-
@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 @knud @Legit_Spaghetti not my area of expertise, but I did take a space law class in law school in the last decade. I think we are in uncharted territory here with regard to liability for injury on earth from light from an object in space. The important part is their admission of potential harm in the filing. I don’t think the FCC had grounds to deny them. Insurance past launch is $$, and optional in US.
-
@sundogplanets OP already knows how to look up the FCC filings, and FAA doesn't make the required financial responsibility disclosure public. A FOIA request might work, but could take too long to be useful.
@sundogplanets Who would be in a position to know:
Reflect Orbital PR/comms
Reflect Orbital CFO, general counsel, and founders
Investors (Lux Capital)
Insurance:
Lead broker
Co-brokers
Primary underwriters
Reinsurers
Insurance attorneys
Regulators:
FCC & FAA (by FOIA request or direct inquiry)
State insurance commissioner of California
IRS / tax authorities
Others:
Launch service provider (requires coordinated launch insurance)
Competitors (who?) -
@sundogplanets @knud @Legit_Spaghetti
afaik from my wife, usually only launch failures are insured ("hull"), not liability of operating a satellite.
@sundogplanets @knud @Legit_Spaghetti
reconfirmed: space liability is typical not insured/insurable. nor is manned space flight/space tourism (yet). environmental impact on global scale (including humans, eg by planned reentries in a massive scale) is not insured/insurable/covered.
-
@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
There are a bunch of rules about not interfering with satellite radio communications or cameras with radar beams or lasers.
I know this because they apply to planetary radar observations.
So we end up with a temporary drop-out whenever a Starlink crosses the beam.
Going in the other direction, who knows?
-
@sundogplanets If Congress has any say, they'll just put warning labels on telescopes and ban amateur astronomy.
@gooba42 @sundogplanets This product is known to the state of California to cause blindness
-
@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.
Grift. Pure and simple. Watch out, there's a pump and dump coming your way.
Someone in RO is connected to the administration, either directly or indirectly. maybe through bitcoin.
-
@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 @knud @sundogplanets @Legit_Spaghetti if you just set up a mirror on the ground that happens to reflect the orbital mirror's light back at it, who could complain?
-
@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.
@sundogplanets they also say different parts of the operation are likely to have different insurers. Payload and TPL insurance likely won't be from the same place
-
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 REALLY good question.
Insurers have historically kept a rein on more sketchy launch companies, since a rocket going wrong has some rather obvious externalities. I have a feeling RO's insurer will learn about their externalities very quickly.
-
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...
Excellent thought.
-
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
