A private company based in New Zealand, Rocket Lab, recently launched a flashy satellite into orbit around Earth. This reflective sphere has 65 faces and is called the Humanity Star. Its name stems from the idea that this sphere will temporarily light up the sky, drawing human attention to the fact that we are but a speck of dust in this universe, and allow everyone to feel a connection to this great expanse of universe we are a part of. It would orbit around Earth for 9 months before it begins to decay and gets burned up entering the atmosphere.
What astronomers are worried about, in this case, is not that it would increase the amount of space debris in the atmosphere, but rather that this disco ball satellite would disrupt their research. As this shining ball flashes across the sky, it could pass through the field of view of observatories and affect data collection. This light pollution affects all those who look towards the stars.
Although the intentions behind the Humanity Star are noble and good, I believe they did not place enough consideration on the effects of sending this satellite into space. This may be fine once, but I do not think it would be a good idea for similar satellites to be sent into space. There are already issues of space traffic and light pollution.
What are your thoughts on the Humanity Star? Would you like to see more?
Sources:
Humanity Star (track its path)
Washington Post
The Guardian
6 comments:
At first glance, the idea of art in space seems amazing. Expanding the boundaries of human expression to the stars sounds like a great idea, but there is a significant downside. If the humanity star disrupts research for nine months, lots of time, energy, and money will be wasted. If there is some way for space art to not leave an impact on science, it would be a great prospect. However, I see the humanity star as a step in the wrong direction and less important than research.
The concept of using space as a canvas for art is definitely a fascinating and original concept, but disrupting observatories as a side effect definitely needed to be taken into consideration. Also, there's already a lot of debris in space; you have to take into account if something goes wrong and more metal is thrown into orbit. Also, I'm no psychologist, but is "drawing human attention to the fact that we are but a speck of dust in this universe" really a "noble and good" intention?
Thank you for pointing that out, Chris. I'm afraid I did not phrase that sentence in the best way. They definitely phrased it much more eloquently on their website. Everybody is just so wrapped up in their daily life that not many people take the time to look at the stars (if they can even see them), appreciate the expansiveness of the world we live in, and look at our actions differently. I believe this is very true, but this piece of artwork in space may not be the best way to spread this message.
Woah, this is pretty extra. I'm sure that they have good intentions, and the idea is pretty cool, but ultimately disrupting scientific research for 9 months is big enough of an issue that it really shouldn't be launched. I'm also curious as to what the incentive behind doing this is, like did they just decide to do this out of the blue?
I'm interested as to what regulations there are for sending things into space. I know that treaties prevent countries from sending up weapons (including nukes,) but I am not aware of a governing body that applies to all space companies. Maybe we need one so that we can reduce debris in earth orbit, prevent the danger of satellites crashing into each other, and stop PR stunts from getting astronomers shook.
I'm wondering how the company is paying for this. What does this company do, and why is it spending money on launching a ball into space? Seems like a pretty useless action with no return.
Post a Comment