So, the FCC approved the deployment of one Reflect Orbital (RO) satellite, which will provide sunlight-on-demand to customers.
The dismissive way the FCC rejected over 1,600 public comments reads like typical rulings from MAGA judges.
Here are some highlights -
1. Ironically, the FCC finds the project to be in the public interest – based on inputs from RO but not the 1,600 comments from the public.
2. The FCC makes the sweeping claim that it regulates radio transmission, not light. So, environmental harm due to light is out of scope for this assessment. But they also opine, that even if they had jurisdiction, "these harms are unlikely to occur."
3. Harm to optical astronomy is dismissed as being out of scope.
4. Objections from astronomy orgs are dismissed by claiming that one Reflect Orbital satellite will not cause harm.
5. The FCC dismisses potential eye damage to amateur astronomers believing the risk to be small and worth it.
6. It dismisses objections about national security, public safety and environ. harm claiming that they apply to large constellations and hence are out of scope.
7. The FCC relies a lot on assurances from Reflect Orbital.
When the time comes, the current FCC will probably use similar slippery arguments and a few new ones to approve the full constellation.
This is Reflect Orbital's marketing fluff for the application of its sunlight-on-demand technology.
BTW, we have been doing these things for centuries using things called light bulbs, driven by electricity some of which is generated from solar energy during daytime. And that too in a very precise and controlled way, according to need.
Who is buying this?
Here's the 10-year plan (marketing fluff?) from Reflect Orbital.
Pricing? Please call. :eyeroll:
@AkaSci
IMO all the FCC satellite approvals for other than Geostationary satellite to internationally approves slots for USA use are invalid.
@AkaSci what do the mean "reduce light pollution"? It's literally the most problematic light pollution possible (not that I actually think it's possible).
@AkaSci it's a proposal to scam VC money, just like the mega constellations are.
@drs1969 @AkaSci @sundogplanets The Reflect Orbital system generates solar energy at night. The business case therefore competes with the price of energy storage. The decline in energy storage prices is still in full swing (https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/new-record-lows-for-battery-prices/). This does not seem like a viable option to me.
@BaronWalschap @AkaSci @sundogplanets Oh it's not. None of those so called use cases withstand 5 mins with a calculator. Solar? Forget it, nowhere near enough energy reflected.
Lord knows how they'll do collision avoidance on a large reflective sheet.
These folk are all cult idiots at best, thinking they know more than actual experts. Somehow, this doesnt stop them being given lots of money.
@drs1969 @BaronWalschap @AkaSci @sundogplanets we put large sails on our satellites to be able to deorbit them quickly, there is still enough atmospheric drag. The ones we use are smaller than what RO proposes, and attitude control for deorbiting is a lot easier than for pointing.
This isn't quite at "datacenters in space" levels of foreseeably impossible, but it's close. I suspect the target audience is the same.
@drs1969 @BaronWalschap @AkaSci @sundogplanets
And even IF a giant space mirror could beam down enough sunlight to bring a significant amount of solar energy down...
That would be a terrible fucking idea, given that the planet is HEATING UP TOO DAMNED FAST ALREADY.
Everything about this is awful.
@AkaSci I can’t believe I have to consider that, one day, I’ll reflect on how nice it was to HAVE A FUCKING NIGHT SKY….
Jul 10, 2026, 2:59 PM@GiuseppeLasagna @AkaSci I *REALLY* want one, just one optical physicist to go on TV and explain how utterly F'ing RIDONKULOUS this all is :-/
Jul 10, 2026, 3:15 PM@AkaSci what a shit .. hope at least UE and non US countries will forbid this service to be available on their lands..
They speak about duration and lux
They don't speak about lightened surface ?
Like it's 5m² or 5km² that are enshited ?
Jul 10, 2026, 3:43 PMThey're talking about a level of lighting "comparable to daylight"!? What happens if they focus that much light some place that already has daylight?
Jul 10, 2026, 4:23 PM
Jul 10, 2026, 5:35 PM@AkaSci how much for targeted orbital laser assassinations? (asking for a friend..)
@mousey
Ask the Russians or the Chinese.
https://theins.press/en/inv/294635
@AkaSci those red rings are warning signs of infection!
@AkaSci
Why do they claim 24/7 lighting?
That is really going to fuck with people's sleep patterns. :|
Jul 10, 2026, 6:23 PM@AkaSci can't we have one single 80's low budget dystopian sci fi movie that didn't happen?
@AkaSci their plan is to steal the night sky from us.
Jul 11, 2026, 1:58 AM@AkaSci As if Earth isn't hot enough! This bunch is bonkers, as is anyone stupid enough to seriously contemplate such a move.
Truly, the shadecloth idea was more practical.
Jul 11, 2026, 2:29 AM
@AkaSci Actually I see a valid use case there. Illuminating hostile territory for strikes or bomb damage assessment. Especially if you could control the angle of the light.
Classical optical satellites are hardly surprising, so you can easily hide or move equipment without being observed, but with artificial light, only clouds are a problem.
But is that enough to justify it?
@frummidge @AkaSci its then as illegal as spy planes or spy sats.
Not at all.
Also, any cloud, artificial or not, can stop their light. I wonder if mild anti-satellite weapons could already stop them. Like spraying paint on them....
@frummidge @AkaSci Thats only US law... 😉
Jul 10, 2026, 4:16 PM@frummidge @urwumpe @AkaSci Lol.
@urwumpe @frummidge @AkaSci Can paint be sprayed in the vacuum of space?
I mean, I imagine it can in fact be "airisoled" but wouldn't it do so too effectively? I don't see it applying to a surface.
I don't know shit though so I'm curious if anyone knows if this would actually work.
@crazyeddie @frummidge @AkaSci of course, already happens on a small scale by accident. Also it won't stay a good mirror if it passes through the exhaust of a SRM.
Accidents can happen....
@urwumpe @crazyeddie @AkaSci
Yeah, it's light pollution. Deliberately degrading common resources that have social or scientific value, or any environmental resources, is an act of war prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
Regulators are already approving too many satellites to keep the night sky dark and usable for astronomy. That ground-based astronomy is necessary and important, eg for geolocation services, which need to observe distant quasars as a way to calibrate the precise location of ground stations. Adding more satellites with the explicit purpose to reflect light to the Earth's surface is not only destructive to science and the technological infrastructure we rely on, but it destroys an environmental resource too.
No matter how cool the concept is, it's fundamentally destructive. Your discussion ignores that:
@crazyeddie @urwumpe @frummidge @AkaSci no, but then yoh are already missing the obvious answer...
Jul 10, 2026, 4:16 PM
@AkaSci Hold up hold up hold up. Are they advertising that cities can "reduce light pollution" by redirecting a 3-mile block of sunlight to nighttime locations?
@AkaSci This is like that scene in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless mind where Jim Carrey asks if there's a risk of brain damage, and Tom Wilkinson reluctantly admits that the procedures technically IS brain damage.
@AkaSci
"We're going to enhance urban life in your city"
"Cool, more trees and bike infrastructure?"
"No we're going to make it never ever be evening or night. Just endless daylight. You can get rid of all that wasted time sleeping or enjoying the sunset glow on the stone as evening falls."
"That sounds like hell."
"Also we're going to charge your government for doing it."
"So, me? My taxes?"
"Don't worry, you'll save money on streetlights, except if it's cloudy or Kesslery weather."
@petealexharris @AkaSci All the better to watch fragments of hundreds of Kesslering satellites as they rain down on your neighbourhood.
@anne_twain@theblower.au @petealexharris@mastodon.scot @AkaSci@fosstodon.org look, ma, falling stars...
all I see is extort extort extort with 'sunlight for subscription' fees - that will also make private-owned solar panels illegal somehow.
@AkaSci They will weaponize this tech.
Given their total lack of comprehension on BASIC GRAPHIC DESIGN, I don't have a lot of confidence in their ability to judge the consequences of things that are too bright.
@AkaSci When the time comes, the current FCC will probably pretend they never dismissed concerns because they were only approving one satellite, and just declare this approval applies to a constellation.
@AkaSci
They are a Spectrum regulator.
They should have no authority to licence anything else. Nor spectrum outside of above USA. Nor content of TV/Radio stations.
The ITU allocates spectrum usage.
The FAA only authorises launch safety and is bad at it.
USA Regulation is broken.
@raymaccarthy @AkaSci I don’t understand the “makes the sweeping claim they regulate radio and not light”. They literally can only regulate 9 kHz to 3 THz. Visible light is outside that.
What’s next? Are we’re going to be upset that MSHA isn’t regulating Minecraft?
@AkaSci And what about the extra energy to hit the Earth, when the Earth's energy balance is not so balanced anyway currently thanks to the extra CO2 etc.?
On the plus side, developing a laser that melts constellation satellites is then likely a grey, unregulated area.
@glitzersachen @AkaSci You don't need to melt them. With pulsed lasers, you can damage sensitive equipment (which this satellite will contain) by causing explosive evaporation of surface material. The damage is done by the recoil. This is one mechanism that was considered for Reagan's 'star wars' missile interception system.