Good Bye, Black Sky
August 27, 2020 2:55 AM   Subscribe

How satellite ‘megaconstellations’ will photobomb astronomy images: most detailed report yet about the impact of giant satellite clusters says damage to observations is unavoidable [previously]

"SpaceX, an aerospace company in Hawthorne, California, has already launched more than 650 of a planned 12,000 Starlink satellites. Other operators include the London-based OneWeb, which has launched 74 of what it hopes will be a gigantic fleet of 48,000 satellites, and Amazon, which last month received US government approval to launch 3,236 satellites for its planned Kuiper service."
posted by - (53 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- goodnewsfortheinsane



 
I guess this will increase the chance of this coming true.
posted by kokaku at 3:26 AM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


Telescopes should just be moved to a long orbit off the plane of the ecliptic anyway. Trying to take accurate photos of very distant objects through heavy gauze (atmosphere) is just quixotic.
posted by sammyo at 4:34 AM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]


billionaire capitalists attempting to create new goods and services to monopolize a market aside, astronomy does strike me as similar to butterfly collecting -- a somewhat useless* if not oddly rewarding hobby/occupation.

I've been planning my #vanlife / WFBFE escape from the ratrace for a while now and have found the new satellite internet buildouts to be rather exciting news. "Excelsior!" is all I have to say to Messrs. Musk & Bezos.

* yes they can identify new incoming NEO threats but all that should be handled by professionals with assets already up in orbit to both identify and neutralize these threats.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 4:59 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Some perspective.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:26 AM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


Truly Musk is a capricious Lord.
With one hand he gives us the cyberpunk pick-up truck of our childhood dreams; with the other hand he takes away the stars.
His ways are a deep and abiding mystery.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 5:43 AM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Devil's advocate but isn't providing high-speed Internet access to those in rural/remote locations more valuable? Amateur astronomers will still be able to see the sky and almost everything they can see now and couldn't scientific organizations theoretically launch satellites like Hubble or use a theoretical moon base?

I just don't see any particular reason why Musk would want to prevent us from viewing the stars.
posted by beatThedealer at 5:51 AM on August 27, 2020 [5 favorites]


Telescopes moved out of cities when the light of civilization got too bright for them.

Astronomers moved their observatories then, they will do it again.

I think many research institutions will benefit from the same launchers that are putting up communication constellations. Great observatories lofted by large nation states may now be affordable to a decently funded university.
posted by nickggully at 6:29 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Whenever this topic gets discussed (here and elsewhere), people often bring up some variation of "well, Musk can just put a telescope in space. Problem solved." So, to encourage useful discussion in this thread, let me be absolutely clear:

ORBITAL TELESCOPES ARE NOT A FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO GROUND-BASED OBSERVATORIES

From the vast differences in scale to the ability to actively service and replace instruments, spacecraft are not simply replacements for ground-based telescopes, even if more money is thrown at the problem.
posted by miguelcervantes at 7:11 AM on August 27, 2020 [31 favorites]


I regret to inform Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3's Anatoly Cherdenko that space has been corrupted by capitalism.
posted by ckape at 7:19 AM on August 27, 2020 [13 favorites]


I just don't see any particular reason why Musk would want to prevent us from viewing the stars.

He doesn't, any more than the people who built industrial chemical plants wanted to pollute rivers. Rather, it's a foreseeable consequence that is deemed by the person or persons responsible an acceptable cost to them of the benefits.
posted by Major Clanger at 7:27 AM on August 27, 2020 [23 favorites]


For all the hype about them I've failed a couple of times to catch a glimpse of those satellites as they pass overhead, they're visible for only a brief moment.
posted by xdvesper at 7:45 AM on August 27, 2020


I've been a casual planet/star/space oddity watcher for the last 20 years, and I've definitely noticed an uptick in visible satellites crossing the sky at night in recent years.
posted by cardboard at 7:53 AM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


ORBITAL TELESCOPES ARE NOT A FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE

Yes, today, at current price points. That is changing, fast. The trends for the nextgen SpaceX Starship are looking good and at admittedly optimistic price estimates it'd cost like $100k to launch the hubble. Big Space is changing, reusable, price competitive launches are reworking the landscape. It's a tricky period but getting off planet will soon be a frequent, as in several a day, common activity, not a national or worldwide event. Basically throwing less at the problem, for the billions spent on the Webb telescope that has not launched, send up dozens, a couple break, deorbit and send a another dozen.
posted by sammyo at 7:59 AM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Elon Musk's involvement is a distraction. He got there first but multiple other Western companies are racing to get there second, and sooner or later a non-Western country like China would get around to it and run roughshod over any objections. LEO constellations are too useful to ignore.
posted by allegedly at 8:16 AM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


What is the environmental cost of launching a spacecraft into LEO as often as “several a day”? Honest question- maybe it will be a lot of additional CO2 and noxious gasses, or maybe it’s just a tiny fraction of pre-COVID air travel.
posted by simra at 8:23 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


I do not like Musk, but I'm on team non-event for this. I enjoy satellite-watching, and always try to catch the ISS and Iridium flares when I can, but I think folks underestimate just how much hardware is already up there. Half the bright objects I observe end up being spent Russian rocket stages from the 90s. Anyway, there are plenty of apps (I use heavens above) that will let you see any and all satellite passes and the brightness visible from your location. It's worth taking a look to see what's flying through your local skies.
posted by phooky at 8:24 AM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


Every anti-ballistic missile defense system is also an anti-satellite weapons program. If it really bothers enough people then it should be entirely possible to sway one of the nations with said capability (currently: US, Russia, China, India, and [unverified] Israel). If it doesn’t...well, there’s your answer, no?

I’m a big fan of astronomy and the space program in general but the benefits to developing nations here are too great for any objections not to faintly smell of colonialism + “I’ve got mine”-style Trumpism. This potentially helps a lot of people who’ve been exploited by the Western world for generations, so between that and the above this feels like a topic that falls well below the Possibility Of My Altering Things / Ethical Imperative To Alter Said Things threshold. YMMV.
posted by Ryvar at 8:30 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


If it really bothers enough people then it should be entirely possible to sway one of the nations with said capability (currently: US, Russia, China, India, and [unverified] Israel). If it doesn’t...well, there’s your answer, no?

That feels *really* disingenuous, to say "if you can't convince a nuclear nation to risk the aforementioned Kessler syndrome, you aren't trying hard enough".

Given Musk's "coups are great when they help me" policy with lithium, how many governments are you willing to overthrow in the name of "helping a lot of people who've been exploited by the Western world"?
posted by CrystalDave at 8:39 AM on August 27, 2020 [2 favorites]


Yes, today, at current price points. That is changing, fast.

No. No matter how cheap going to space is, you cannot change that fact that 30m of glass on a mountain in Chile will beat 2.4m of glass in orbit. You cannot change the fact that on the ground you can design new instruments, put them on the telescope, modify their designs to work better, put them back on the telescope, and then put them in a rotation with other instruments. Free launches doesn't make spacecraft free. Free launches doesn't make support costs go away. Free launches doesn't populate TACs to allocate observing time. Free launches doesn't prevent catastrophic failures like Hitomi. Free launches doesn't prevent semi-catastrophic failures like HST. You don't get wildly successful projects like ASAS-SN in space. You don't localize GW170817 without 1m telescopes on the ground ready to respond with a few hours notice. You don't conduct a survey like the LSST when you need ground stations to take in petabytes of data. And speaking of ground stations -- this requires having protected bands for transmission, while Starlink is swamping out Ka.
posted by miguelcervantes at 8:42 AM on August 27, 2020 [27 favorites]


When I went out to look at comet Neowise my wife pointed out a satellite. It was pretty neat to see. Later when we went out to see the Perseids we didn't see any satellites and I'm glad for that as it would have felt like a false alarm. I can definitely understand that if there were significantly more if these satellites then it would fundamentally change the night sky, but my daily experience of it is already degraded thanks to the fact that I live in a large city and can only see the brightest stars unless I'm willing to drive for an hour or more.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 8:44 AM on August 27, 2020


(A clarification: the last of the first gen Iridium satellites was deorbited late last year, so Iridium flares are no more. Huzzah or bummer depending on your point of view, I guess. I tend towards bummer, but ymmv.)
posted by phooky at 8:45 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


CrystalDave, I think we can take it as read that most people on Metafilter are not fans of robber-baron capitalists like Musk and maybe assume a little more good faith than that. My point was that this is the kind of problem no individual can solve but enough individuals to sway a nuclear power’s policy can very trivially solve. However since the solution reduces opportunity for people of developing nations to achieve parity with those who have historically exploited them, I don’t feel like there’s anything I as an inhabitant of one of the exploiting nations should be doing about this, other than continuing to vocally support a return to >90% taxation for people like Musk.
posted by Ryvar at 8:50 AM on August 27, 2020 [3 favorites]


Given the amazing and rapid rise of AI, why can’t they make an AI that just removes the space junk from the telescope image?
posted by njohnson23 at 8:55 AM on August 27, 2020


What is the environmental cost of launching a spacecraft into LEO as often as “several a day”? Honest question- maybe it will be a lot of additional CO2 and noxious gasses, or maybe it’s just a tiny fraction of pre-COVID air travel.
Yeah, it's the latter. An ordinary orbital launch burns about as much kerosene as a long distance airline flight (eg F9 kerosene tank is comparable to the size of a 747's), and Starlink launches are every couple of weeks right now. If SpaceX get the flight rates they want for Starship then it could become a concern though. Musk talks a big game about planning to use carbon neutral Sabatier methane if they get to that point, and he has some climate-change bona fides, so I think they'll at least try it. Any competition probably won't.

On the orbital telescopes thing, I agree that we're likely to see significantly more as launch prices fall, but I also agree that they're not a replacement for ground based telescopes. I think a Starship SOFIA would be cool.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 9:06 AM on August 27, 2020


Sort of amazed to see people take such extreme positions of just allowing private companies to do whatever they want with our night sky.

The visibility of the satellites is not crucial to their actual function and so there's a lot of room for compromise. I understand there have been talks with astronomers to try and reduce the reflectivity of the satellites so as to cause less harm. And that is how things should happen. Astronomers are not trying to take away mobile phone from all the children.

High-visibility satellites also will ruin a lot of long-exposure night photography. That is an aesthetic thing though and has little market value.
posted by vacapinta at 9:07 AM on August 27, 2020 [13 favorites]


njohnson23: Machine learning techniques are now being applied to historical data for exoplanet hunting, with great success.

But ultimately they function as an algorithmic refinement for detection, which is still bound by signal to noise ratio. More objects in LEO substantially increases the noise to sift through. AI can potentially help offset the problem somewhat, but it’s still a problem.
posted by Ryvar at 9:15 AM on August 27, 2020


Back in the 1970s folks got upset when corporations would use a public resource like the Cuyahoga River as a sewer and set it on fire regularly.

Today, billionaires and their corporations just appropriate public resources in the sky for their personal use and folks are like -- meh, that's progress.

Corporations use these public resources because they are free. The fact that they are free is a large public subsidy dropped in their laps and one of the reasons they become billionaires.

If you want telescopes in space then tax the bejeebers out of these robber barons for every appropriation of public resources.
posted by JackFlash at 9:22 AM on August 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


Given the amazing and rapid rise of AI, why can’t they make an AI that just removes the space junk from the telescope image?

Techniques to clean images have been used for decades, primarily to account for cosmic rays, which add random streaks across images. However, the problem with satellite trails is that they tend to saturate the detector, which makes them destructive. Once you have over 50,000 counts in a pixel, you can't trust it anymore, even if you attempt to subtract off the satellite trail. At this point, using an AI / ML to guess what was in the pixel is creating a circular logic if you're trying to discover something new -- you're now discovering what the ML algorithm says is there, not the Universe.

As an analogy: if a house burnt down, you can't use ML to tell you what color the living room was painted. Even if it uses the colors of burnt out furniture to get a good idea of the paint scheme, the information has been lost.
posted by miguelcervantes at 9:22 AM on August 27, 2020 [9 favorites]


The only way this sort of thing could have been stopped was via the UN, probably around a decade ago. That ship has sailed, for good or ill.
posted by aramaic at 9:31 AM on August 27, 2020


Satellites entirely block tracks across images. Most algorithms for removing artifacts (similar to super resolution algorithms) fill in the gaps with what they expect to find, which may or may not be what you would really find -- you can't create information from nothing. If you're an observatory the rise of mega constellations means you either have to accept warts in your observations or you have to plan around constellations being in the sky (if you even know they're coming). You could get around the problem like you might with cosmic rays and take multiple shorter pictures. That, however, necessarily entails some rethinking of astronomical camera design, where read noise and data throughput are usually already at the limits of the technology. Plus, now you need to think a lot harder about what to do when stripes of your images necessarily have a lower signal-to-noise ratio because of the satellite, and whether that compromises your science.

...

Astronomy is as useless a field as any science. That is: astronomy has told us that 95% of the energy in the universe is dark matter and dark energy (which we know very little about, mostly through astronomy); astronomy has told us there are planets outside of our solar system and given us more real data on the likelihood of other earth-like planets; astronomy has a credible shot at measuring neutrino mass; astronomy gives us many ways to test general relativity.

Ground-based telescopes give us the best means for making many of those measurements. On the ground you can build bigger telescopes that let you collect larger amounts of light than you can in space, for faster and cheaper. Those cheaper telescopes also last longer: many space satellites are meant to operate for only a few years, whereas decades-old telescopes are still producing new science thanks to the ability to upgrade them.

(I think we would feel very differently of space telescopes if we hadn't been able to fix Hubble's mirror with an additional lens. Instead of being a profound contribution to science, Hubble would have been a hilariously expensive boondoggle.)

...

Astronomy is not a perfect community. It has had only the beginning of a reckoning with its toxic culture, especially in its treatment of not-white-men, and particularly native Hawaiians. I think it's important to keep that in mind when people (like me) talk about the more noble aspects of the science.
posted by getao at 9:39 AM on August 27, 2020 [6 favorites]


Happen to live somewhere where I get fairly dark skies (Utah - in a neighborhood that leans heavily to "no lights at night" - more so for the local animal population's benefit - but as a side effect gives me decent star watching)

I haven't noticed a problem yet. I did get horribly confused the first time a satellite train came over and every time I'd look down at my phone to try and find the Sky Guide app to do augmented reality the satellite would have appeared to have gone backwards (when in reality I was seeing the next satellite in the train just coming into view...)

But I do worry that this is a slow ebbing away of the night sky and death by a million individual launches type scenario.

Also - this is a fun website with new constellations to play with (Tin Cancer, Milk Carton, etc) and some visualizations of the space junk problem. Note: website is backed by Kaspersky and the Russian space company that originally wanted to put huge digital billboards in space but now want to do a space clean-up mission - so would take any data from it with a bag of salt....but it's pretty
posted by inflatablekiwi at 9:48 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


This is very far from a non-event: if completed, StarLink alone will more or less triple the number of satellites in orbit, from 2,600 to 12,000, and OneWeb's proposal is for 48,000 more. Moreover, their altitude is high enough that they are constantly reflecting sunlight, unlike satellites below 600 km that enter the earth's shadow. From the NSF's
SATCON1 conference document linked from the article:
Nighttime images without the passage of a Sun-illuminated satellite will no longer be the norm. If the 100,000 or more LEOsats proposed by many companies and many governments are deployed, no combination of mitigations can fully avoid the impacts of the satellite trails on the science programs of current and planned ground-based optical-NIR astronomy facilities.
Astronomy is just as much a public good over the long term as communications networks — astronomical observations are important for our understanding of fundamental physics, like the nature of dark matter. The public deserves some review of the impact of these satellites in advance, and whatever mitigations are possible with the design of the satellites, rather than astronomers being surprised and bearing the entire burden.
posted by mubba at 9:54 AM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


Today, billionaires and their corporations just appropriate public resources in the sky for their personal use and folks are like -- meh, that's progress.

Worse, they rub their hands and say, "woohoo, can't wait to browse mefi from my RV in Siberia" or wherever and discount humanity's ageless passion for the stars as a worthless hobby.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 9:55 AM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


Hubble was launched on Shuttle, so it was a hilariously expensive boondoggle, and the repair missions made it even more so. The NRO's not sending up repair missions for all the other KH birds; they just launch another one. Even at Delta IV Heavy prices it's way cheaper, and you get a more modern satellite into the deal.
posted by rhamphorhynchus at 10:03 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]


Today, billionaires and their corporations just appropriate public resources in the sky for their personal use and folks are like -- meh, that's progress.

To be fair, a lot of people said that about pollution as well.
Unregulated dumping of crap into the rivers was accepted as the price of industry for years.

Humans seem to lag about 30 years or so behind an issue, so I figure in 2050, once we he have satellite constellations spelling out "Eat at Joe's", then maybe the EU will pass a treaty.
posted by madajb at 10:50 AM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


Perhaps Vantablack satellites would help. Exciting in other ways, though.

More seriously, comms companies in the US have gotten goodies by promising rural connectivity, but they’re terrible at providing it unless sued, at the state level AIUI. Promises of service to people in countries the comms companies aren’t even incorporated in should be taken with great suspicion.

Maybe the launchers should be taxed in kind - every seventh launch is for the public good.
posted by clew at 11:55 AM on August 27, 2020


Astronomers certainly have known about this possibility for decades, Teledesic was planning this in the early 90's. The scientific community could have this on the addenda but they probably just did not imagine someone could actually do it.

The current batch will be gone in less than a decade and the company seems to be steadily sending trial sats to minimize the problem. I get that it impacts current experiments and the status quo but just a bit disappointed at the attitude of stop I want the old way (grant dollars) rather than looking to newer better techniques.
posted by sammyo at 12:00 PM on August 27, 2020


I shouldn't be surprised by the vocal support for ruining public science for private profit and yet...
posted by runcibleshaw at 4:22 PM on August 27, 2020 [7 favorites]


MetaFilter: not a perfect community
posted by i used to be someone else at 5:21 PM on August 27, 2020


Pardon my ignorance about this but can't they paint them black? It seems to me that if you want to hide something at night, black is the way to go.
posted by rebent at 5:24 PM on August 27, 2020


The Nature article linked from the post says, ”The company also painted one Starlink black and launched it in January to see whether that would help. But the black paint made the satellite thermally ‘hot’, harming its Internet operations”
posted by mubba at 5:41 PM on August 27, 2020


As a scientist this thread has rather depressed me. I suppose we could tear down a few museums to make room for urban renewal? After all society is always making more artefacts...
posted by traveler_ at 6:56 PM on August 27, 2020 [4 favorites]


I wanted to amplify beatThedealer's point about the actual purpose of these satellites: to bring broadband to rural communities. That digital divide is wide and deep, and isn't being otherwise seriously addressed.
posted by doctornemo at 7:54 PM on August 27, 2020


ClearSpace One.
"is intended to test technologies for rendezvous, capture, and deorbit for end of life satellites and space junk. Destructive reentry will destroy both the captured satellites and itself."
posted by clavdivs at 8:05 PM on August 27, 2020


astronomical observations are important for our understanding of fundamental physics, like the nature of dark matter.

yup.
" If the force carrier is a non-Abelian gauge boson, the dark matter is part of a multiplet of states, and splittings between these states are naturally generated with size alpha m_phi ~ MeV, leading to the eXciting dark matter (XDM) scenario previously proposed to explain the positron annihilation in the galactic center observed by the INTEGRAL satellite."

"In contrast, telescopes have long made public their own data on astrophysical phenomena. What if, instead of looking through these data for objects such as black holes and neutron stars that evolved over millions of years, one could comb through it for signals of more fundamental mysteries, such as hints of new elementary particles and even dark matter?

"NASA’s Fermi satellite has confirmed the existence of a vast cloud of energetic electrons surrounding the center of our galaxy — electrons, they suggest, which could be subatomic shrapnel from dark matter particles colliding with one another."
posted by clavdivs at 8:21 PM on August 27, 2020


I will never, ever see the night sky. It breaks my heart to say this, but many nights I have stood in my backyard, gazing up at distant worlds, knowing that I will never visit them.

This photo of the Racetrack is in my head every time I look up. I feel small; I feel enormous! I feel, in the night, like I stand at the cusp of creation. I'm not spiritual at all, but when I look up at the sky, I hear a voice that says, "Go! And Do! Become!"
posted by SPrintF at 9:12 PM on August 27, 2020


billionaire capitalists attempting to create new goods and services to monopolize a market aside, astronomy does strike me as similar to butterfly collecting -- a somewhat useless* if not oddly rewarding hobby/occupation.

There is a surprisingly large chunk of chemistry and physics that was discovered or figured out by looking at stars. Helium was found in the sun before anyone discovered it on Earth. Even cataloging stars and exoplanets isn't just stamp collecting because of all the clever tools, math, and techniques developed to find and study them, many of which get used for other purposes.
posted by straight at 3:51 AM on August 28, 2020 [3 favorites]


in 2050, once we he have satellite constellations spelling out "Eat at Joe's"

Love your optimism that we'll be able to go out and eat at places by then.
posted by Riki tiki at 7:13 AM on August 28, 2020 [4 favorites]


Oh this makes me so angry. I mean, to the point where people around me do not want to hear me talk about it any more ever.

Someone I know actually said "but... internet everywhere! I mean, sure, at the expense of the sky" without realizing that the sky is IMPORTANT. It doesn't have to make money to be important. It doesn't have to advance science to be important. Our solar system is not about us. Our galaxy is not about us. The night sky is NOT ABOUT US. And boy howdy (to be about us for a moment) do we need reminders that things are not about us.

Why should we, the people of Earth, continue to cede the sky to profiteers without protest?

SO ANGRY.

And I don't even know how to fight this. Sure, I donate to the IDA. But what countries care, what legislators care, who protests? I don't want fruitful collaborative discussions between astronomers and the ultra-rich. Blah blah fucking blah. I want this to be recognized as pollution and as theft.
posted by inexorably_forward at 1:08 AM on August 29, 2020 [2 favorites]


Moon phases and dark and starlight are vital signals to a bunch of species other than us. How does their survival get a vote?
posted by clew at 10:09 AM on August 29, 2020 [1 favorite]


An article from earlier this year ponders the similarities between the outcry over Starlink and the 30-meter telescope planned for atop Mauna Kea.
posted by subocoyne at 3:03 PM on August 29, 2020


This is very far from a non-event: if completed, StarLink alone will more or less triple the number of satellites in orbit, from 2,600 to 12,000...

And if Starlink is successful, SpaceX might increase that to 42,000SpaceX submits paperwork for 30,000 more Starlink satellites, SpaceNews, Caleb Henry, 10/15/2019:
SpaceX has asked the International Telecommunication Union to arrange spectrum for 30,000 additional Starlink satellites. SpaceX, which is already planning the world’s largest low-Earth-orbit broadband constellation by far, filed paperwork in recent weeks for up to 30,000 additional Starlink satellites on top of the 12,000 already approved by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission.
More details at WP > Starlink.

Starship is gonna need windshield wipers.
posted by cenoxo at 5:32 AM on August 30, 2020


This comment is coming in four days after this was posted, so nobody will see it, but ...

Every time this pops up, I feel like a little balance is in order. Indeed, the rapidly growing Starlink constellation from SpaceX has been getting lots of attention from the astronomy community for the past year, due to its potential for ruining observations and especially real science. However, while it's easy to rant about SpaceX proceeding with complete disregard for science, the situation is more nuanced. After some initial dismissive bluster from their infamous leadership, SpaceX has actually been deeply engaged with the science community on how to mitigate the problem. I'm sure many of you have heard about "DarkSat", "VisorSat" and so forth. This latest update from the AAS details what's been happening, and I think it's worth pointing out that they are getting excellent cooperation and engagement from SpaceX, versus not so much from Amazon and OneWeb (two other mega constellations in the works).

This press briefing describes the efforts underway, split into presentations from four working groups:
- observations
- simulations
- mitigation
- metrics

The whole thing, including the 20 minutes of press Q+A at the end, really is worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCyE8BNYIKM#t=2m00s
posted by intermod at 8:23 PM on August 31, 2020


« Older The Christchurch shooter has been sentenced.   |   This is what makes Batman an advertisement for... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments