Am just about to take-off, so no long answer now. But there are plenty of objections from the astronomy community for good reasons.
-
You just relegated all Great Art of this world to "vanity". Van Gogh's Starry Night: vanity. Michelangelo's David and Sistine Chapel ceiling: vanity. Rodin's The Thinker: vanity.... If you take that approach.
You keep insisting it has to have some scientific, educational or commercial purpose. Why? Art needs not to be any of those. What makes Orbital Reflector different and unique, and Art indeed, is that none of the objects orbiting our planet were meant to be art and nothing more.
-
-
You're missing my point: I'm just saying that adding another satellite like this brings nothing beyond what the many purposeful ones in orbit look like already. Or the many natural phenomena already there to enthrall. It's a completely empty artistic statement.
-
Of course, if this object were able to suddenly morph into the Mona Lisa, or a Pollock piece, it may then be an artistic statement, but Disney characters & Buy Pepsi! adverts would have there first, & that would not be good thing. I hope we can agree on that much.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.