The orbit matters as well. I'm really surprised to see this so badly written.
These will be in LOW orbit, they will of course be tiny specs in the visual field the problem is that when the sun just clips them (not in Earth's shadow) they can reflect (being pretty flat) straight at stuff, appearing as a bright... (really bright) well ... star. This fucks with gain control on amplifiers and stuff (these are looking for asteroids also reflecting a bit of sunlight, dull not flat ones) - and this causes severe bleed and leaking artefacts as well as the time it takes the amp to recover.
The existing satellites are not really comparable mostly because of this. You will see them as long streaks (you can do this with a 30 second exposure on a not totally-crap camera pointed up at the sky) but very dim streaks, on the order of stars with brightness. I may try and find an example (I've got loads, but I haven't curated or culled the crap pictures I've taken....)
Remember double the distance, quarter the intensity, a planar mirror doesn't magically make it a laser (you wont get a square the size of the mirror reflected away, it'll spread with distance, as the incoming rays are not parallel)
I didn't get very far because I found it incredible after the start (literally: not credible) maybe it got better and was an argument about social benefits. Who knows.
"Who gives a fuck about asteroids? Not like anyone would coordinate or has plans on dealing with it even if we found one heading towards us" right?
The other case is how difficult this is to undo. Although I'm only "mildly informed" on this, to not have a stupidly high ping means these things are going to have to be fairly close to the earth, hopefully atmospheric drag will ensure they can't linger for fucking ever up there.
I also question "do we really need this?" what happened to facebook's internet drones? Remember that really impressive laser thing where they kept it on target.
Imagine instead if we actually used ip multicasting (routers and state that big of a deal?) for example. So say you want to watch a really popular youtube video and you're assigned to some edge location, that sends out a bunch of multicast streams staggered say N seconds apart. You connect and you get sent your own copy (as we do now, unicast) of at most N seconds of content, then use the multicast, This'd reduce a hell of a lot of bandwidth
We could make our existing bandwidth a lot better used. Reliable multicast is doable (receiver asks usually because of scaling and we already have load balancing) - but I'm not a particularly strong advocate for it, just mentioning in passing.
The UK at least has really seen OpenReach take the piss and drag its feet to.... I dunno but they're either retarded or trying to get more funds all the time (actively), and US ones are certainly not the former. Their inability to be managed and do state projects means this?
Yeah.... as I said I only read the top bit. I also don't really like the idea of all this so people can watch ever larger files of "UFOs on tape: proof" or "is the world really flat?", I once heard somewhere "having a blog is great, it's like being a real journalist without any journalistic responsibility!" I do hate the rise of people somehow getting authority to speak on a subject that have a student's glimpse of the matter.
.....Anyway I strayed off topic, yeah the existing crap up there, not really comparable!