Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rocket Lab Criticized For Launching Their Own Private 'Star' Into Orbit (newsweek.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the fake-stars dept.

Newsweek reports: A private satellite company launched a three-foot-wide, carbon-fiber orb called the Humanity Star into the sky last week. Rocket Lab has promised the Humanity Star will be "the brightest thing in the sky," presumably other than the sun. The orb will reflect light from the sun back to Earth to achieve this effect. It's expected to orbit the Earth once every 90 minutes for the next nine months before it falls out of the sky and burns up in the atmosphere. The reaction on social media has been largely swift and scornful...

The stated goal of the project, at least, seems admirable: "No matter where you are in the world, rich or in poverty, in conflict or at peace, everyone will be able to see the bright, blinking Humanity Star orbiting Earth in the night sky," Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck said in a statement on the project's website. "Wait for when the Humanity Star is overhead, and take your loved ones outside to look up and reflect. You may just feel a connection to the more than 7 billion other people on this planet we share this ride with."
Slashdot reader dmoberhaus writes that "astronomers are annoyed by what they perceive as just another piece of space junk getting in the way."

"Wow. Intentionally bright long-term space graffiti. Thanks a lot Rocket Lab," complained an astronomer at the California Institute of Technology. And one New Zealand journalist accused Rocket Lab of "vandalising the night sky with shiny space rubbish."

141 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. An amusing combination of factors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Astronomers without access to space-based telescopes are annoyed because someone is giving them yet another light source they have to remove from their observations. (Ask any astronomer how they feel about the moon.)

    1. Re:An amusing combination of factors by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Because it's space. This is the first space troll. Space trolling on a commercial scale. Now you need space cops to put them in space jail. But you have to get to space first.

    2. Re:An amusing combination of factors by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      I guess some country is going to have an opportunity to test their anti-satellite missles. Who will it be? China? United States? Russia? Time to fetch the popcorn!

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    3. Re:An amusing combination of factors by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I made a vague reference. Most will miss it.

    4. Re:An amusing combination of factors by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      So instead of 90 days of a light we get a disco ball that lasts potentially much longer. It will be John Travolta's dream come true!

    5. Re:An amusing combination of factors by plopez · · Score: 1

      Why? Better to say "we just killed your children".

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re:An amusing combination of factors by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because it's space. This is the first space troll. Space trolling on a commercial scale. Now you need space cops to put them in space jail. But you have to get to space first.

      The people who did this are on earth, not in space.

      There is such a thing as space law. Per the info at this link, it covers such principles as:

      non-appropriation of outer space by any one country, arms control, the freedom of exploration, liability for damage caused by space objects, the safety and rescue of spacecraft and astronauts, the prevention of harmful interference with space activities and the environment, the notification and registration of space activities, scientific investigation and the exploitation of natural resources in outer space and the settlement of disputes.

      (Emphasis mine.) Has Rocket Lab broken space law? I don't know, IANAspaceL. But whether they have or not, I suppose they could be sued by anyone who is harmed or nuisanced by their activity, just like you could sue a neighbor who shines a spotlight into your front window, or plays their stereo too loud.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re: An amusing combination of factors by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Why do astronomers care about this?
      It's only up there for 9 months get over it.
      Also it orbits the planet every 90 minutes. It's just an artificial shooting star. You'll see a streak, then it's gone.

      Astronomers care because it's not a legitimate satellite put into space to provide communication, research, or monitoring. It's an in-your-face disco-ball whose sole purpose is to make itself visible. That's obnoxious, and just not cool. Astronomers already deal (willingly) with good-faith satellites that can interfere with observations. They don't want to deal with useless crap like this.

      For now, it's just one satellite with a 9-month mission. But if others follow, we could wind up with a mess of orbiting billboards that pollute the night sky.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re: An amusing combination of factors by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Nobody in this thread claimed that astronomers were more important than anyone else. The point is that they have a legitimate complaint about the impact of satellites like this.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Rocket Lab can pacify the astronomer critics by proposing a mission to obliterate the moon.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    10. Re:An amusing combination of factors by dwywit · · Score: 2

      It reminds me of a sci-fi short story about astronauts on the moon, conducting their experiments, one of which was a kind of roman candle, ejecting a cloud of glowing {something} into the moon's atmosphere, for observation by earth scientists. It was supposed to glow and provide information when hit by un-filtered solar radiation, or some such.

      One of the astronauts had accepted a sizable payment from a soft-drink company to fit a stencil over the candle's business end, resulting in an unprecedented giant advertisment for coca-cola in a glowing vapour cloud in lunar atmosphere, handily also visible from earth.

      The astronaut concerned had no further career, but he never had to work again.

      I thought it was a nice trick, as it didn't affect the experiment itself.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    11. Re: An amusing combination of factors by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    12. Re: An amusing combination of factors by Megol · · Score: 1

      Are you wanting a discussion and therefore posting (bad) bait or do you really not understand this?

    13. Re: An amusing combination of factors by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Astronomers care because it's not a legitimate satellite put into space to provide communication, research, or monitoring.

      It's not? It can't be accurately tracked to measure Earth's gravity and variations of atmospheric density? It couldn't be used to validate Rocket Lab's third stage orbit injection performance?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Memnos · · Score: 1

      The moon's "atmosphere"?

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    15. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Just tell them they will be executed when they wake up in the morning, some time in the next 100 days.

    16. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      It sounds more like they are engaging in 'space activities.' Now, are you trying to interfere in their space activities?

    17. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Menstrual cycles would go completely haywire.

      I don't think we are prepared for that sort of hysteria.

    18. Re: An amusing combination of factors by wellingj · · Score: 1

      Surfers would cry.

      --
      Money is the root of all evil?
    19. Re:An amusing combination of factors by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      This isn't google. If you don't know something, you type it up in the box at the top of the page, and your answer is delivered to you almost instantly. We call that the internet. HTH. HAND.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    20. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I guess some country is going to have an opportunity to test their anti-satellite missles. Who will it be? China? United States? Russia? Time to fetch the popcorn!

      Te last thing we want to do. Taking one piece of space junk and turning it into millions of pieces of space junk makes a much more dangerous situation. There is a reason that there have been few tests of anti-satellite weapons. And the first war in earth orbit will be the last for a long time. The last access for a good while in fact.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re: An amusing combination of factors by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Astronomers care because it's not a legitimate satellite put into space to provide communication, research, or monitoring.

      It's not? It can't be accurately tracked to measure Earth's gravity and variations of atmospheric density? It couldn't be used to validate Rocket Lab's third stage orbit injection performance?

      That would be original, eh? So let's say that thousands of these satellites with made up science missions (who is doing the science by the way, are launched into orbit. Now other orbiting missions are threatened by the gauntlet they have to run to get through the field of these presumably useful satellites.

      the orbital real estate around earth isn't infinite, and when dustmotes can be a real safety problem by virtue of sheer velocity, publicity stunts or advertisements are best kept on earth.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re: An amusing combination of factors by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      So then you wouldn't care if I vandalized your favorite natural park or scenic vista with graffiti, as long as I use a spray paint that only lasts nine months.

    23. Re: An amusing combination of factors by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      From what I can see, it would be more like hanging a small (animal-safe) mirror in a random tree in one of the national forests, and every few minutes having it magically move to another random tree in another national forest.

      When this Humanity Star is on the night side of the planet, it is in the shadow of the Earth, and so is dark. When it isn't in the shadow of the planet, it is either on the day side of Earth, or at the polar regions. It looks like it isn't going to be that much of an impact on the poor down-trodden astronomers that 90% of the comments are making it out to be.

      It flew overhead of my location last night while I was making these comments, and again a couple hours ago. Last night it was in the shadow, so invisible, and now it is morning so it is again invisible.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    24. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Another view might be that they've taken it upon themselves to change the night sky for probably billions of people... just because. And whilst I know this isn't permanent, and whilst I kind of think it's a cool thing, I also kind of feel that maybe it's a bit of a fucking liberty really and perhaps also a bit narcissistic.

      So I'm torn. But it's not a permanent thing... so providing we don't end up with other "stars" sponsored by whoever, then I guess I can just put up with this one experiment.

    25. Re:An amusing combination of factors by Trogre · · Score: 1

      ... within the next nine months, before it burns up in the atmosphere.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    26. Re:An amusing combination of factors by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      I'm torn, but I think I can resolve the conflict. This is a cool thing and aside from being a nuisance to astronomers I don't have a problem with it. However, if people are permitted to launch anything into space for no good reason there is potential for the sky to get very crowded and for the entire population of the world to have to deal with it. Therefore, as I see it, we have 3 options:

      1: Ban satellites that emit bright lights entirely and shoot down any that are launched (if we can even do that).
      2: Regulate satellite launches so that this sort of thing can be done without entering a tragedy of the commons scenario.
      3: Adopt a laissez faire attitude and say that people can do whatever they want regardless of the consequences.

      Given that clearly both of us find #3 unacceptable, we are therefore left to choose between #1 and #2. If we feel that #1 is the best option, then that is in effect to say that we are against this launch. If we prefer #2 then we can be for or against it, but we don't need to have a strong opinion.

      So really, where you come down on this launch really comes down to which of those solutions you favour. Personally I don't feel a great deal of confidence in #2 working out at the moment, so I think I have to come down against this launch.

    27. Re:An amusing combination of factors by spitzak · · Score: 1

      That was an Arthur C Clarke short story. I think there was a whole series of them about the first landing on the moon, written in the 50's. The Americans, Russians, and the British all sent ships at the same time, and there were about a dozen people on each of them.

    28. Re: An amusing combination of factors by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Yes. Scientists do not own space. Deal with it. They have to share space just like everyone else. If they have a problem with that, then they should go somewhere else. Space is large.

      I see. I wouldn't reply but your troll is so weak I can't help but reply, not to help you, but perhaps some might learn.

      The potential orbiting real estate around earth is actually rather small. Most useful orbits are relatively low, or at geostationary, where the orbital speed matches up with th eearth's rotation. You'll have objects wizzing around at various speeds, at low earth orbit we'll say 7 km/sec, or in geostationary, around 3 km/sec.

      And collisions at those speeds are rather destructive even for itty bitty pieces. So any junk is going to be orbiting pretty fast, and will pack a wallop if it hits anything. You might find out rather quickly just who visits you if your silly reflecting doodad takes out a military or even a nice expensive satellite for a nice powerful corporation.

      Now get back to the conspiracy kook section of Youtube before mommy and daddy take their computer back. You were supposed to be doing homework anyhow.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    29. Re:An amusing combination of factors by cwatts · · Score: 1

      I wonder why no one complained about (or remembered) this thing:

      https://newatlas.com/mayak-sat...

      According to the website, it was designed to orbit for just a month.

      csw

      --
      chris watts íë¦ìS ì(TM)ì
  2. Actually . . . by jshackney · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This seems kinda cool to me. I get texts that let me know when the ISS will be overhead (usually 1 or 2 days in advance), and they tell me where to look, what time, and give me a rough elevation where the ISS will be visible and where it will disappear. Maybe the Humanity Star gang could take some notes.

    1. Re:Actually . . . by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      If you're the sort of person likely to "take your loved ones outside to look up and reflect"... wouldn't it be more appropriate to stare up at the multinational ISS rather than a glorified disco ball?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes. And coincidentally, I did this just tonight with the ISS. Here are two links that would be helpful to anyone else interested:

      http://www.heavens-above.com/PassSummary.aspx?satid=25544 --- you'll need to enter your location in the upper right hand corner of the page
      http://transit-finder.com --- for finding when ISS will transit the moon or sun (or a near pass as well)

    3. Re:Actually . . . by gravewax · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can understand looking up to see the ISS as being kinda cool. Looking up to see a glowing piece of space junk they wasted millions to get up their! not cool, not even close to cool. Actually it is almost offensive. If they wanted to bring people together then spend it helping people or on something with some worthwhile outcome rather than a piece of junk that will disappear in 2 years.

    4. Re:Actually . . . by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the sort of general precedent and concern about what happens in the long-term as launch costs go down even further. This object is deliberately bright, unlike the ISS which just happens to be bright because it is big. What happens if McDonald's decides to put a set of 30 of these shiny balls that form a constellation in the shape of an M?

    5. Re:Actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I love disco balls and glitter.

    6. Re:Actually . . . by quantaman · · Score: 2

      This seems kinda cool to me. I get texts that let me know when the ISS will be overhead (usually 1 or 2 days in advance), and they tell me where to look, what time, and give me a rough elevation where the ISS will be visible and where it will disappear. Maybe the Humanity Star gang could take some notes.

      The ISS is part of an international space program.

      Communication satellites are for communication.

      Spy satellites are for... a different kind of communication.

      The "Humanity Star" is a cross between an Ad campaign and a self-indulgent art project.

      Maybe the next one can blink a secret message in Morse code or something.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Actually . . . by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Things like the ISS and Iridium flares are from satellites which serve some practical purpose. This disco ball serves no practical purpose, and just adds another item to the thousands of items astronomers have to check for which may possibly intrude on their observations for the night.

      It's the difference between someone accidentally shining a laser at your eyes just because they thought it was fun and cool to play around with a laser pointer, and someone accidentally shining a laser at your eyes while setting up equipment designed to give advance warning of an arriving earthquake. The latter is unfortunate but understandable, the former is inexcusable.

      Fortunately its orbit is low enough it'll decay and burn up soon. But even that is assuming it doesn't hit some other piece of debris and shatter, kicking up pieces of junk into a higher orbit which could end up circling the Earth for decades if not millenia. It's a really bad risk to be taking for something whose purpose is entirely artistic. Astronomers are making a big deal about it because they're trying to nip the problem in the bud. Since we currently have no means of capturing and removing space junk from orbit, once something gets stuck up there, it's potentially up there forever.

    8. Re:Actually . . . by Nutria · · Score: 2

      They wasted nothing to get it in orbit, since it was a secondary payload on what was -- to begin with -- a test launch.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    9. Re:Actually . . . by Nutria · · Score: 2

      But... think of Humanity while you stare up at the sky and sing "Kumbaya", holding hands with your neighbors. Results don't matter, only whether or not you mean well.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re: Actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We already have the moon which is even more interesting because it's the same moon that has been seen by every creature that has ever lived and now it's our turn to see it for a little while.

    11. Re: Actually . . . by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Mod this up. ^^^

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    12. Re:Actually . . . by gravewax · · Score: 1

      They could have put a small communications satellite or a science experiment or thousands of other things that actually had a practical benefit so yes they DID WASTE something, they wasted an opportunity.

    13. Re:Actually . . . by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      What ever it takes to get us to look at and seek the stars is better than everyone myopically focused on their genitals. Time to scrap the war industrial complex and get the space industrial complex working in it's place. If it takes bright shiny rubbish, then so be it but I would demand they try to clean it up, rather than let it just fall out of orbit. If we spent half of what we spend on war on space instead, we could get to Mars within a decade and likely the stars before the century is out. Or we can just kill ourselves with global thermonuclear warfare whilst we focusing on each others genitals and SJW crap.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    14. Re:Actually . . . by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It's their test launch, they can do with it as they fucking wish. And besides, they can't offer the space to a paying customer, because it is a test launch. How stupid are you that you can't figure out both of those issues?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:Actually . . . by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Plus, you don't put real payloads on test launches. There was no guarantee of making orbit.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    16. Re:Actually . . . by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand how orbits work.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    17. Re:Actually . . . by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      But even that is assuming it doesn't hit some other piece of debris and shatter, kicking up pieces of junk into a higher orbit

      How exactly can pieces gain additional velocity via impact? Every collision I've seen to date has slowed the colliding objects.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    18. Re:Actually . . . by cwatts · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can put just about any object into orbit at any height you like. Heavier objects don't need to be higher up. There is a lower limit to orbital height, obviously- practically speaking this is 160 km above earth. Any lower and atmospheric drag will reduce your angular velocity and your satellite will fall to earth in flames.

      The orbital period is a function of the height of the orbit - all objects (of any weight) will have the same period at the same height. (So the recurring cloud of debris in the film Gravity [which i worked on] is pretty much impossible, even if you cheat and allow an elliptical orbit. I mentioned this to the director after he told me how realistic he needed the film to be, but that my 'opinion' didn't get much traction at the time.)

      If you make the orbit high enough (35,786 km) , the period will be the same as the length of a day, and you have a geosynchronous orbit. If you also put your bird over the equator, its geostationary.

      just sayin.

      csw

      --
      chris watts íë¦ìS ì(TM)ì
    19. Re:Actually . . . by cwatts · · Score: 1

      And people would have complained that the solar powered raspberry pi was a useless piece of space junk.

      you can't win, with haters. :)
      csw

      --
      chris watts íë¦ìS ì(TM)ì
    20. Re:Actually . . . by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Isn't it a question of kinetic energy? Two objects that happen to collide and disintegrate. The kinetic energy doesn't go away - some of it turns to heat, some of it is transferred to other objects, and they might achieve a higher energy level (i.e. velocity) than before.

      Roll a soccer ball along the ground, then kick another soccer ball at it. What happens to the first ball?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    21. Re: Actually . . . by oobayly · · Score: 1

      To be pedantic, if a satellite in an eccentric orbit is climbing from perigee it would have a higher velocity than a satellite in a circular a orbit (with a lower semi major axis), and would have an "upward" velocity component, so it's possible.

      Eg. Humanity Star (pe 296km, ap 537km) upon impacting a satellite in a circular 300km orbit will be travelling 66m/s faster (7796 vs 7730).

      Of course, space is big so not only do you need them to collide, but you need it to collide with a specific satellite, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over it happening.

    22. Re: Actually . . . by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he's pretty cool. I mean what can be cooler than cutting the penalties for paedophile priests...

      Just Google "pope francis protecting paedophiles", reported on by both liberal and conservative publications.

    23. Re:Actually . . . by Nutria · · Score: 1

      the humanity star actually takes a LOT of space with a 3 foot diameter

      Sigh.

      It's a good thing you're posting AC, so as to not get associated with something so idiotic as a geek not knowing that these things are folded during launch, and then "unfold" once ejected.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    24. Re:Actually . . . by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Shame on you for not imagining what useful stuff a cubesat could do in *very* LEO.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    25. Re:Actually . . . by Nutria · · Score: 1

      You have a 1 meter sphere worth of cubesat, and an orbit that'll swing it over your C&C twice a month,

      Relay stations, you numbnut: relay stations Launch enough of them and they can form a mesh network where one are more are always in contact with your omnidirectional antennae.

      and degrade in ~90 days.

      This disco ball will be up for 9 months, not 3 months.

      if you're Good, you'll have it in one way laser LoS maybe 8 days a month.

      If you can't negotiate any relay stations or launch enough for a mesh, then buffer it all in flash RAM (or whatever they use for storing data before transmission) until you're able to transmit it down.

      What useful function can you perform?

      What do current cubesats do? At the very least, Earth monitoring if you point the "camera" down, and possibly astronomy/physics experiments in all sorts of wavelengths if you point a suitable "camera" upwards.

      But, you say, it'll only be in orbit for 9 months!!!

      Well, cubesats are cheap. Launch another one (or ten) in 6 months (in case the launch gets delayed). And six months after that, etc, etc ad nauseum.

      Again, you whine, but I might miss some coverage!!!

      It's on the cheap, dude. Live with what you have, and be happy.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    26. Re:Actually . . . by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I get texts that let me know when the ISS will be overhead

      So what you're saying is we already have this thing in the sky and there's no reason to make another? Yep, couldn't agree more.

    27. Re:Actually . . . by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The ISS is also a glorified disco ball, but slightly more expensive.

    28. Re:Actually . . . by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      They launched 3 cubesats along with their reflector ball. So the wasted opportunity is down to 25% of the original zero wasted opportunity.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    29. Re: Actually . . . by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      And don't even mention a "dirty bomb" to them!

    30. Re:Actually . . . by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

      Well that's just ghey.

    31. Re:Actually . . . by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      What am I missing about how orbits work?

    32. Re:Actually . . . by Nutria · · Score: 1

      You can't send more up later. Because you just have the one spot, on the one test launch.

      That wasn't part of your original assertion, which is Filling the same space with enough electronics, power generation and communications equipment to actually be useful would've weight _A LOT_ more, and cost millions if not billions in development cost _AND_ would have had to be pushed into a much higher orbit.

      Which is patently absurd on three fronts:

      1a. Maximum mass of CubeSat is 1.33 Kg.
      1b. Size is 10cm^3

      2. Minimum cost: $50K.

      3. It's my business whether or not I'm ok with my cubesat being up for 9 months.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    33. Re:Actually . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Making an M constellation would require constant stationkeeping, worse depending on the size of the constellation. Every constituent satellite is in a different orbit, which means they're moving in different directions relative to each other. An orbit is, after all, around the center of mass of what's being orbited.

    34. Re:Actually . . . by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      Small objects can stay very close to each other without stationkeeping if they are at the same altitude. The classic example of this is the Vostok 3 and Vostok 4 missions. In general, satellites at nearly the same altitude stay very close to where they were to each other. They will of course move out of alignment but if launched all together this will take a long time, on the order of weeks or months, more than enough time for a big giant M to be seen all around the world.

    35. Re:Actually . . . by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I didn't mean "real" as opposed to "imaginary". I meant "real payloads" as in "objects that have an important function, and are expensive".

      They could have put a beach ball full of fireworks material, and made a great light display for 30 seconds as it burnt up. They chose to do something slightly different.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    36. Re:Actually . . . by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      He owns Slashdot's servers? I didn't know that. Sorry, disregard my former comment on his self-righteousness.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    37. Re:Actually . . . by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      So your reasoning is that we should abandon all space activity, dismantle our rockets, deorbit every satellite and space station, and never again dare to pollute the cosmos with our random junk, even if we think it is important.

      I'm cool with that. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  3. Sure is skeletons-at-the-feast in here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm looking forward to hopefully getting to see it sometime. I don't really see how it would be particularly annoying to astronomers. I could see how it could make kids who got a telescope for Christmas have something interesting to look at though.
    http://www.thehumanitystar.com/#tracker Here's the official tracker BTW.

  4. Congratulations - you've invented Sputnik! by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> a three-foot-wide, carbon-fiber orb...will reflect light from the sun back to Earth to achieve this effect..."No matter where you are in the world, rich or in poverty, in conflict or at peace, everyone will be able to see the bright, blinking Humanity Star orbiting Earth in the night sky" said (crazy leader)

    Congratulations - you've invented Sputnik!

    1. Re:Congratulations - you've invented Sputnik! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Almost: Sputnik included a radio beacon. They'll have to work up to that.

    2. Re:Congratulations - you've invented Sputnik! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      It looks like a disco ball. I immediately thought it was a Groovitron!

    3. Re:Congratulations - you've invented Sputnik! by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Sputnik blinked? I thought it just beeped, or moo'd or something.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. Ads :) by wolfheart111 · · Score: 2

    Lets put some ads up there.

    --
    [($)]
    1. Re:Ads :) by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Lets put some ads up there.

      I'm selling space on Saturn's rings. Jupiter is already sold out.

    2. Re:Ads :) by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that's what this is actually about. Proof of concept for space advertising so they can get a big $$$ contract.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
  6. Tracking info by FeriteCore · · Score: 1

    Anybody have tracking info,
    Two-lines?
    COSPAR ID?
    NORAD ID?
    Keps?

    I'd like to look for it.

    1. Re:Tracking info by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have tracking info: 1ZE680080304050194, carrier UPS.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Tracking info by FeriteCore · · Score: 1

      I wish was allowed mod points.
      ROFL for real!

    3. Re:Tracking info by curiousdave · · Score: 2

      Check at Heavens-above.com they have Humanity Star listed

    4. Re:Tracking info by NetFusion · · Score: 1

      Sorry we destroyed your satellite while in transit. Returning to sender.

      https://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTra...

  7. or... by JediJorgie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > You may just feel a connection to the more than 7 billion other people on this planet we share this ride with.

    If you want to feel a connection with the others on the planet, how about you take the millions this BS cost and use it to help bring clean water to the millions of people around the world that do not have access to it today?

    1. Re:or... by HanzoSpam · · Score: 1

      I think this guy is a lot more likely to feel a connection with some astronomer's fist, if they ever get their hands on him.

      --

      Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    2. Re:or... by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This was a test object for the launch vehicle. It did not cost millions. So do you go to the movies? Drink alcohol? Play video games? Why don't you use that money to help bring clean water to people that need it?

      Yes this was a bad idea and a little bit self-indulgent but overall not super evil or expensive.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:or... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      Get real, a space company is testing a launch vehicle, and the advertising and costs are no different than the commercials during a superbowl game

    4. Re:or... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that "bringing clean water to the millions" is not a matter of throwing money at the problem, your comment makes *no sense*.

              Everyone needs to understand - the world produces FAR more than required to simply support the population, VASTLY, and in a lot of cases, we are operating far below capacity because there is no point in making any more.

              Poverty, famine, dirty drinking water, most disease, are all *political* problems that could rapidly be eliminated if you removed the political barriers. In many cases, solving the problem would simply mean killing off brutal dictatorships and tribal leaders that cause the vast majority of pain in the world while trying to grab power. Unless you are willing to do that, all the money in the world will not solve the issue, in fact, sending more money to areas where problems exist would certainly make the problem much worse.

    5. Re:or... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nonsense, it's just a one meter ball. plenty of bigger *junk* floating around up there, at least this one is pretty

    6. Re:or... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      One of these things interferes with astronomical observations from the Earth, and one of them doesn't. It's not that hard to figure out.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:or... by TheReaperD · · Score: 1

      He's sending his car to Mars because he's planning on moving there in a little over a decade. He's just sending his stuff in advance.

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    8. Re:or... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Can you ramp up the melodrama a bit please? Please tell us how it is going to force granny out of her house, lead to famine in the Rift Valley, and cause more volcanoes to light up the Ring of Fire.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re: or... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Musk intends to place the car in orbit about Mars.

      You were saying...?

      (BTW, I am not especially a fan of Musk, Tesla, or his flaming desire to grow a REALLY BEEG space peen by creating a monument to himself, but let's base our criticisms on *facts*, if you don't mind.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    10. Re:or... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Astronomers don't just look at the stars to pass the time. They are actually trying to learn things.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:or... by inking · · Score: 1

      Oh my God, it’s the perpetually upset soul being upset comment #56017805. Let’s just stop doing everything we do and spend that money on building water purifiers. I suggest we start with Slashdot.

    12. Re: or... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      The car is not going into orbit around Mars. It's going into a solar orbit that doesn't go anywhere at all near Mars, but extends beyond the orbit of Mars.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    13. Re:or... by backslashdot · · Score: 1

      How much of your money and efforts have you donated to that cause?

    14. Re:or... by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      Poverty, famine, dirty drinking water, most disease, are all *political* problems that could rapidly be eliminated if you removed the political barriers. In many cases, solving the problem would simply mean killing off brutal dictatorships and tribal leaders that cause the vast majority of pain in the world while trying to grab power. Unless you are willing to do that, all the money in the world will not solve the issue, in fact, sending more money to areas where problems exist would certainly make the problem much worse.

      You also have to be willing to lower your standard of living. In order to raise the standard of living in the third world, the standard of living in the first world will need to decline. It doesn't have to decline much, but it has to decline. It might be as trivial as taking a 15 minute shower instead of a 20 minute one or only having only four Starbucks (or any "brand name" cups of coffee) a day instead of five, but something would have to change. Point being that in the first world (or at least in the US) where we have a culture of excess, it is difficult to do anything perceived as giving up what we currently have. If solving world problems means giving up what we have or it means paying more taxes, it is a hard sell.

      Is what I am adding another case of a "political" problem? Yes it is.

    15. Re:or... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is an annoying fact but most first launches are simply mass simulators. AKA dead weight. I guess a car is as good as any other mass. It would seem logical to offer it to a much of student projects and or spare NASA probes. The problem with that is while it could get a free ride you still have to fund the ground support and if they blow chunks you have the fall out from that.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  8. Do you want Kessler? by sinij · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you want Kessler? Because that's how you get Kessler!

  9. Coke? Pepsi? by cwatts · · Score: 1

    Just be grateful I haven't fired up my megawatt bank of ruby lasers and metamaterial focusing array to shine a coke logo on the moon.

    It will happen!

    --
    chris watts íë¦ìS ì(TM)ì
  10. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid I looked upon the stars and thought by myself, the first humans were seeing the exact same thing. For that matter the stars looked upon us since the dinosaurs. A orb doesn't phase me anywhere near as much.

  11. From the same people with no outrage by thrillseeker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    over some dude launching a Tesla to Mars.

  12. Uhhh... by ckatko · · Score: 1

    how is this any worse... than the literally millions if not billions of pieces of junk already floating up there?

    Were all of the soviet's space tests for a noble cause? Were any/all of the classified military satellites the USA put into space for a noble cause?

    Who gives a shit if one piece of space junk floats up there... at least it's only ONE PIECE of space junk.

    1. Re:Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it's designed to be especially bright.

    2. Re:Uhhh... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually, the classified military satellites are for a noble cause. They help keep the peace and because of them allowed the first arms limitation and the arms reduction treaties. They have also helped to monitor ceasefires.

      The problem is that this is highly reflective and could cause astronomers problems. Good news is that it is big enough, light enough, and low enough that it will only be in space for about 9 months.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Uhhh... by Solandri · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Most satellites and junk is invisible. They only flare up when they're at a specific angle between the sun (or moon) and your location. This thing is intentionally designed with multiple facets to reflect sunlight/moonlight from multiple angles, thereby greatly increasing the odds that it'll screw up the photograph or measurements you're taking of a patch of sky.

      Who gives a shit if one piece of space junk floats up there... at least it's only ONE PIECE of space junk.

      Who gives a shit if one piece of trash is thrown into the environment. At least its only ONE PIECE of trash.

      Either something is wrong or it's not. The amount of pieces can scale the degree of wrongness, but cranking it all the way down to one piece doesn't turn a wrong into a right.

  13. U.S. Navy pilots will orbit only two such objects by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    with a shiny cylinder in the middle?

    https://www.bing.com/videos/se...

  14. it won't last long by mr_exit · · Score: 1

    It's hardly "long term space grafiti" the things orbit will degrade in 9 months and burn up on re-entry. - source, the tracking website for it, http://www.thehumanitystar.com...

    --

    -------
    Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
    1. Re:it won't last long by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Howdy, neighbour! I'm going to play loud music 24/7 on my backyard sound system for the next nine months. But, hey, it's only nine months so it's not *really* going to bother you... right?

      (BTW I have the same coaster.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  15. Eh, bright? by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Informative

    No idea why anyone is upset. Sure, if you start putting dozens of disco balls in orbit there might be an issue, but this one you can't even see! When they say "bright" they mean that once every quite a few days it might pass above you in just the right orientation and angle from the sun so that one of its mirrors hit you directly during the night with sunlight at a maximum brightness of... magnitude 4.2... If you don't know what that means, it is about as bright as the stars in the middle of the little dipper "handle", the ones you can't see from the city. So cities are out, rural areas can see it, but still it is nowhere as bright as other satellites, ISS etc.
    In any case best data for when/how bright: heavens above.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Eh, bright? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Look up "nip it in the bud" and get back to us.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Eh, bright? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Is that the 'porn rule'? Is their already porn for this thing? That was fast, and you are a freak.

      I mean 'freak' in a good way, of course.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    3. Re:Eh, bright? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      For being an anonymous coward, you sound awfully much like you think you own the place. Please stick around and learn not every person agrees with you.

      The comments on this article are just amazing in their juvenile self-righteousness. Apparently, the only people who should be allowed to decide what goes into orbit are the astronomers that look at the stars that might obscured, or not. I had read so many just in the first comments, I had to make a response, which was, "I didn't know astronomers were the most important people on this planet."

      Yes, I went into troll and flamebait territory with a few of my comments, but only in direct response to the same level of drivel in another comment, such as

      This is vandalism, and there are victims. It's going to disrupt ongoing astronomy work - work that is funded by our taxdollars. The grant managers who now have to shift money around will absolutely find this expensive beyond the launch costs. The grad students and junior researchers who have been waiting for time on telescopes, whose studies and careers will be delayed because of this launch will definitely find this "super evil."

      If that's not worthy of a flamebait response, nothing is.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  16. Kumba by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"No matter where you are in the world, rich or in poverty, in conflict or at peace, everyone will be able to see the bright"

    Kumba freaking ya.

    So the impoverished can look up and see how millions of dollars was wasted. I am sure it will really fill them with love and appreciation.

    "With an expected launch total of $4.9 million per mission, " http://observer.com/2018/01/ro...

    1. Re:Kumba by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      There were other payloads on that test flight. Electron can launch ~500 lbs for that $5M, that's $10K for 1 lb. It probably weighs less than 1 lb, so the most you can theoretically say is being wasted is a few thousand dollars. But in reality they had nobody else who wanted that tiny portion of payload space so it was free.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Kumba by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >"so the most you can theoretically say is being wasted is a few thousand dollars"

      OK, well that is a lot better!

  17. Ego by Centurix · · Score: 2

    The problem isn't just this one instance, but all the following ones which promise to be brighter and up for longer in the future. "Our giant-ass disco ball will be 10 times brighter than the last dudes pathetic pinball, it'll be so bright you won't be able to sleep!"

    Taking a note from the history of skyscraper heights, this could go on for a long time...

    --
    Task Mangler
  18. Just the first step by plopez · · Score: 1

    Next up, space billboards

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  19. Re: kek in space by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Learn to recognise satire.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  20. Just wait for orbiting billboards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Welcome to the future. Next it will be orbiting Coca-Cola logos. Then the ExxonMobile logo burned into the moon.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Troll

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. hasn't this happened before? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I read about disco balls being launched in space before. Grade school science projects, weren't they, carried as part of larger payloads? How is this different?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  25. All things in moderation by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I think it's a cool idea if not overdone. If the sky turns into Pepsi ads, etc. then there's a reason to complain.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:All things in moderation by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's generally considered the "slippery slope fallacy" in debate. Maybe I set the "too much" point too high, but that doesn't mean we should shut them all down.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. New Zealand's 'clean green' image by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 2

    It's a little ironic and a bit puzzling that the country of New Zealand, known for their strong environmental practices, has used their first space launch to put up what some might say is nothing more than space junk. Amazing.

  29. Re: kek in space by Megol · · Score: 1

    Maybe he did?

  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Re:Fuck you, Rocket Lab by Megol · · Score: 1

    You don't think that's a bit of overreaction? Perhaps you just like the word "fuck"?

  32. Target practice by sd1248 · · Score: 2

    Maybe the Chinese could use it for target practice.

  33. It's *our* sky, who do you think you are? by Assmasher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously. Considering the amazing amount of sh** up there for dubious, stupid, or accidental reasons - they're pissed because a PR/Goodwill gesture that will end in 9 months was launched in a way that virtually no other group of humans will be able to replicate?

    Chill, the, f***, out...

    --
    Loading...
  34. Looks like a flop to me? by mark_osmd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    heavens-above.com shows it as about 5 to 8 mag over my location for the next set of passes (see 9 Mar - 19 Mar) http://heavens-above.com/PassS... Which is hardly "the brightest thing in the sky other than the Sun" and not even naked eye visible at all even at 5.0 mag if you're at a light polluted area. It's possible the heavens-above estimate is low for the magnitude? Your plain old LEO satellites will beat these magnitudes all the time, I've seen many from the dark skys of Nebraska when I was there in an astronomy club. But you had to look right at dusk when the sky was just getting dark but so the Sun was still hitting the satellite. The Humanity Star will go dark just like any other LEO sat because it goes into shadow so quickly due to the low orbit.

  35. Purile by Winkkin · · Score: 1

    The next time you file for a launch permit, I hope the government does the right thing and says "No". Damn Children, right up there with Musk and his Roadster. You could have launched something useful?

  36. Wow by TobyMills · · Score: 2

    So Governments spend Billions of your tax dollars on putting up sats specifically designed to spy on you and nobody complains about those becasue they can't be seen. But a private company, spends its own money as part of a rocket test to put up a temporary and beautiful pulsating orb for all of humanity to enjoy, and everyone is outraged. Ok, thats it, we have finally gone mad.

  37. Re: Musk gives us cheap LEO.. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    and what do we do with it... fucking adverts... :(

    --
    [($)]
  38. ass-tronomers by DanWaggoner8288 · · Score: 1

    Whiney bitches won't let us have any hope.

  39. Far too PC... by Julz · · Score: 1

    People are just getting far to PC with things now days. Although I am hoping that Rocket Labs got some form of agreement from the other "interested" orbital organisations.

    --
    When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
  40. Great by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

    Don't give the troll/advertisers any ideas. I'd rather not see ads when I look at the stars.

  41. UFOlogy Volume 18 by kamathln · · Score: 1

    Waiting for a million posts on UFO tracking websites :D