Skip to navigationSkip to content
Ronald Cook

Ronald Cook

  • At first I didn't like this article. Somewhat ironic but I digress. It left me confused. Is the goal of life that Dr. Kahneman is inferring that short term, or fleeting, happiness is more important than satisfaction? It's refreshing to read news that makes me have to think instead of just reacting. Or

    At first I didn't like this article. Somewhat ironic but I digress. It left me confused. Is the goal of life that Dr. Kahneman is inferring that short term, or fleeting, happiness is more important than satisfaction? It's refreshing to read news that makes me have to think instead of just reacting. Or maybe it's a poorly written article that is hard to understand. I am neither a critic or of very high IQ.

  • joined Quartz. This is my first article I've read and my first comment.

    Firstly, I must agree with Professor Raju Narisetti. I have heard and read that having internet access is an essential service. I have no problem with that but I beleive we need to fix the world's basic needs before we strive for

    joined Quartz. This is my first article I've read and my first comment.

    Firstly, I must agree with Professor Raju Narisetti. I have heard and read that having internet access is an essential service. I have no problem with that but I beleive we need to fix the world's basic needs before we strive for 1st world wants.

    The comments in the article made by Mr Dyer regarding potential collisions with other space items does not seem to be a realistic arguement. When I see pictures and/or videos of the number of objects "orbiting" earth, I see it in 3D, so all the objects in a 2D picture or video are not just on the x,y plane, but on the z axis as well. Fron the NASA.gov website:

    "More than 22,000 objects larger than 4 inches (10 cm) are currently tracked by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network. Only about 1,000 of these represent operational spacecraft; the rest are orbital debris. The estimated population of particles between .4 inches and 4 inches (1 to 10 cm) in diameter is approximately 500,000. The number of particles smaller than .4 inches (1 cm) probably exceeds tens of millions."

    While the numbers of space debris seems daunting, we must take into account that the distance these articles are orbiting from the earth is not stated. The smaller the individual piece of debris, the larger its orbit as per Newton's law of gravity. so when we take the estimated number of tens of millions peices of debris into acoount, or the 500,000, we must take the orbital distance into account versus the internet satellites. The conclusion, due to the size of the previously mentioned debris is not an issue. The NASA.gov aslo stated the ISS has to manouver on average once a year to avoid peices of space debris larger than 10cm by 10cm.

    Looking at potential collisions with other orbiting satellites, NASA.gov states there are only approximately 1,000 operational spacecraft. While it is obvious that number is continually increasing, the chance of a collision between a an internet satellite and other operational spacecraft is negligible. Also, the chance of two or more internet satellite "clusters" colliding is also negligible, as the unpowered internet satellites from differing companies will be of different design and therefore differing weight, their individual orbits will vary by weight. Any powered internet satellites would be the largest collision issue since their orbit could be altered to maintain any orbit and any changes to those satellites could cause a collision.

    My Dyer's argument towards internet satellites falling out of the sky being a problem, due to their small size, there is simply no chance of this type of satellite would maintain its integrity during re-entry. They would completely burn up before they could hit the earth.