Slashdot Mirror
No Billboards in Space
An anonymous reader writes "CNN is reporting that the Federal Aviation Administration proposed Thursday to amend its regulations to ensure that it can enforce a law that prohibits 'obtrusive' advertising in zero gravity." From the article: "For instance, outsized billboards deployed by a space company into low Earth orbit could appear as large as the moon and be seen without a telescope, the FAA said. Big and bright advertisements might hinder astronomers."
No big, bright billboards by highways either- because they are a distraction to drivers.
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
The U.S. owns the space the space above the U.S.. I guess the question would be how far up do you consider U.S. airspace.
Besides, this is a good thing. It was only a matter of time until somebody started doing it...
The regulation undoubtedly is not of space as that is impossible for any nation or group of nations. Rather, so far as is logical, the regulation would apply to and be imposed on companies under jurisdiction of the US-that is, this seemingly makes it so that no US company may act to place that sort of advertisement under penalty of the US, purely within its current bounds.
Okay, the FAA controls the US airspace, right? So, they probably won't allow any of these LEO Billboards to be launched in the U.S.
Of course, there's virtually nothing they can do if an LEO craft is launched from some other location and meanders over the U.S. from time to time.
Perhaps they could do something if it were placed in a geostationary orbit over the U.S. but then it wouldn't be in LEO.
"It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
In other words: forget the static billboards and welcome the spinning billtorusii thanks to the general relativity theory and the equivalence principle in non-inertial frames of reference. Another example of politicians who want to write laws to control the entire universe without any knowledge of the real laws of said universe. (Pun most definitely intended.) Sad. Very sad.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Seriously, I don't think doing something like this would be a positive step for a company to take. They'd get a whole lot of publicity out of it right at the beginning, but pretty soon it'd become a major eyesore, and there'd be a lot of loathing towards them for putting it there. Looking at it would get old really quick.
There'd probably be some significant protesting outside their HQ and whatnot. There would be calls for boycotting, which would probably gain some traction, as people become more and more tired of it.
If some company did it, and it was only visible up there for a few days, they'd get some serious publicity, and if they let it die while it was still a novelty, they'd get mostly good press and an excited public. I'd check a website to find out when it'd be overhead, and then go watch it pass over a few times. Just as long as it doesn't stay long enough to become an eyesore.
After a few of these advertisements happened, it'd cease to be a novelty, and the excitement of seeing one would wear off, and people would turn against them.
That's how I imagine it at least.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
> I wasn't aware that the US owned space.
:-)
It would be silly to say that the US owns space. That would be like saying that it owns, oh, Iraq. Historically nations have had "ownership" according to how far they can project force. The "three mile limit" for ocean ownership was determined by the range of shore guns. The USSR did not "own" its airspace until it proved that it could shoot down a U2 spy plane.
If the US Air Force succeds in militarizing space, the US may indeed "own" it. That may prove easier than "owning" Iraq.
On a separate topic, it seems to me that a LEO banner would be visible mostly at dusk or dawn. How would it be lit in the middle of the night? Reflection from terrestrial lights maybe, or flourexcent paint?
The FCC can't mandate broadcast flag. The FCC can mandate what goes in space.
Religion can't stop suicide, but it can stop stem cell research.
I'm so damn confused.
Won't it be nice when nationalism fades?
The U.S. can't unilaterally say "no billboards in space" but they can certainly say things like "US based companies can't put billboards in space" or "no launching rockets from US territory to put a billboard in space" or similar things. Also, outlawing it here in the US could be a step toward getting other countries and/or international organizations to outlaw the practice too. Then if you wanted to put a billboard in space, you'd have to launch it from someplace like North Korea or Syria or international waters (but your ship couldn't be registered in a country that signed onto the treaty), and once in orbit it would last about 10 minutes before a UN missile shot it down (as agreed previously in a UN resolution).
So yes, if just the US outlaws this, it's silly, but it could be a step toward something more meaningful.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
anyone find the actual text of this proposal? last time i checked there was no such thing as 'zero gravity'...
Pardon, but there's a slightly bigger issue, which is how disgusting the concept is. Photographs of the great outdoors? Brought to you by Nikon and Kodak. Night out camping? Brought to you by Hummer, buy one for your next trip and get there in style. Advertisements will universally become part of the landscape. It's so horrifyingly commercial, it makes me want to throw up. That you wouldn't be able to see Star XYZ is, sorry, rather secondary.
I keep waiting for the backlash, and I never see it. First it was the horizon with billboards. Then product placement (no, it's not a new trend, it's been around since the advent of TV). Then clothing. Most recently, people's bodies. Now we're talking about throwing up giant billboards so that you'll have to go inside to avoid them. Where will we stop? When will the backlash begin?
I've noticed that many "futuristic" movies have had floating advertisements in space/the sky (a few that come to mind- Judge Dread, The Fifth Element, and I believe Blade Runner, to name a few) and I think it was almost intended to get us used to the concept. I seriously hope it backfired, sickening people. I know it made my stomach turn.
Thankfully I think this is one area the conservative right will be with us on- they're probably even more horrified of "God's kingdom" being defiled than we are.
Please help metamoderate.
Generally, in science fiction, this sort of thing serves a dystopic purpose. It is basically intended to disgust you. It's hardly an optimistic vision of the future.
"So yes, if just the US outlaws this, it's silly, but it could be a step toward something more meaningful."
Meaningful?!?!?! What was the last space ad you saw?!?! Get real. This is just plain old silly.
Now if they were to outlaw the sodium lights, that would be meaningful to astronomers....
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
It's pretty clear that God's kingdom takes a backseat to profits with these guys. They're not exactly where they might be as far as environmental concern goes.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Space-based ads seem more likely than the "chimera" genetic engineering debate I keep hearing about.
But then, so does subsequent private development of anti-orbital-advertising technology. I wonder how much gunpowder it would take to lob a lead slug to orbital altitude. Doesn't actually need to go into orbit. In fact, it's more likely to do damage if you let the satellite billboard come to it.
Of course, one slug wouldn't do it. You'd need the equivalent of grape shot to have a significant effect.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Yeah, the United States could use this as a new radical method of foreign policy. They could deny any country they dislike access to the Sun until they cooperate.
"and once in orbit it would last about 10 minutes before a UN missile shot it down (as agreed previously in a UN resolution)." More like 10 years.
The "blimps" in BR weren't supposed to be in orbit, they were just flying through the city. That's why you could hear the "Let's go to the colonies!" spiel coming from them. They looked pretty heavy, maybe they were supposed to be anti-grav instead of just lighter-than-air craft.
Freedom: "I won't!"
Perhaps the US cannot unilaterally legislate "no billboards in space," but we can say, "nothing advertised in space may be sold in the US" which may be effective enough.
Astronomers aren't my greatest concern. The fact is, looking straight up into the sky is about the *only* place to escape advertising these days. I hope future civilizations are able to pull back advertising from the ridiculous extremes to which we have taken it. They will look back on us and conclude, rightly, that our central guiding principle was branding.
- I wasn't aware that the US owned space. -
Wow, even when we propose keeping space clean, you just can't pass up the chance to do a little US-bashing, can you?
Heheh. Yeah, you are right. Over the last years the US has been such a formidable world-citizen that that comment was certainly uncalled for.
I'm sure the US will try everything it can to keep space clean. From non-US stuff. *ducks*