[sixti60]

Sorry to be this guy, but I am quite happy this will not happen.

The sky - our sky - is not a playground for tech companies.

Imposing a mesh-grid of thousands of balloons in the sky is an incredible intrusion for people around the world who have not asked for anything.

It's the same for mega constellations of satellites (Starlink).

Would you be willing to have a company come and put unsolicited electronic equipment in your backyard? Probably not. It's the same for our sky - I don't want that Facebook or Google impose thousands of electronic devices in our sky. Or maybe ask "the owner" before you start, i.e. the citizens of the world.

What's more beautiful than watching stars in the sky in a July/August warm night?

Do you really want to lose this landscape forever and have 100 times more satellites than we already have? and have series of white dots one behind the other?

OK, companies and states have done it the past, but it's not a valid argument to justify the acceleration with a factor 10 or 100 of this process with thousands of Starlink satellites for example.

[Tepix]

Unlike an airplane, the baloon flies much higher. I don't think you can see it with your bare eyes from the ground. Perhaps if you look really hard.

Regarding the satellites, i hope the Starlink satellites will also be not visible to the naked eye once they reach their final orbit now that they have the sunshade.

On the other hand, these technologies provide a huge benefit to the people on the ground.

If you want to complain about Loon you should also complain about regular airplanes, helicopters, zeppelins, weather balloons and balloons in general.

[sixti60]

> Regarding the satellites, i hope the Starlink satellites will also be not visible to the naked eye

This is not guaranteed at all. I read articles in the past mentioning that you will see "trains" of dozens of white dots one behind another in the sky.

Do we currently see satellites in a dark summer night? Yes. So for Starlink it will be the same, except with 10 of them one behind another.

I'd be happy to read more sources confirming or infirming this.

[Dylan16807]

> I read articles in the past mentioning that you will see "trains" of dozens of white dots one behind another in the sky.

"Will" there means "right after launch, when they're in a very different orbit from final". They spread out by a very large distance, so that in the final version you'd only have line of sight to a few scattered across the sky.

[shpx]

Always being able to see fast moving dots when looking at a dark sky is a significant change compared to the experience of all our ancestors. StarLink might be the first time someone has done something that affects every single society - even tribes in the Amazon and India.

[Tepix]

If you looked at the night sky in the last 10 years you already saw satellites and second stage rockets in orbit many times during the night, even in a light polluted area.

Here's a study https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.00374 that looks at Starlink satellites with the visor. Looks like Starlink will be visible only in rather dark areas with good viewing conditions. It's not like you're just looking up and they will bother you.

[threatofrain]

Our skies and space shall be the “playground” of military and police though, until the day of international peace.

[sixti60]

Yes, and this is a good reason for not adding 100 times more satellites/balloons/whatever again.

NB: currently we don't have "trains" of satellites, i.e. ten white dots one behind the other in the sky. The mega constellation projects would create this.

[knorker]

> Or maybe ask "the owner" before you start, i.e. the citizens of the world.

Are you under the impression that the sky and satellite space is unregulated, by the people's representatives?

Huh.

[sixti60]

Do you find the questions about sky and sattelite space are often addressed by people's representatives?

I don't think I heard it addressed even once on public media during major elections.

You'll probably say: "then change your representatives or do some lobying or choose representatives who care about this".

This is a little more complicated than this: people are busy with hundreds of other things when they vote, and the fact these questions are never addressed in public debates should not give an 'implicit consent' about "Ok, tech companies, you can do whatever you want with our sky. Dozens of thousands of new satelites? Ok, no problem, please do!"

[knorker]

I think your problem is with representative democracy. Most issues are not taken all the way to the public floor.

> these questions are never addressed in public debates should not give an 'implicit consent'

In a western society whatever is not forbidden is allowed. In more oppresive regimes whatever is not allowed is forbidden.

There has been some press about e.g. SpaceX affecting astronomers, but by and large people don't care. And without the people pressuring them to not do it, the people's representatives, or people appointed by them, make their best judgement.

Regulators have the authority to grant launch and orbit permission just like the DMV (presumably) has authority on a whole bunch of driving license issuance rules and decisions. And how there aren't town halls to get input about the number of fire exits a building has to have.