
   >If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon
   >companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the
   >sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky
   >looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.

   Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By 
   the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas, 
   the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round
   trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as
   5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the
   same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were
   to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...

This is nonsense.  Its like saying that by the time commercials
on television become commonplace every citizen will have their own
hour long nationally broadcast TV program.

   There's always been a problem of having to get 
   away from civilization before you can really find "natural"
   scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip
   of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles
   or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards
   on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still
   "wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital
   billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of 
   growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will
   not save your view of the night sky, because by the time 
   such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble
   finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_
   the stars...

The rest of your post is strange mishmash of "its already really bad"
and "it doesn't really matter if it gets worse."  You should try to
figure out what you are really arguing for.  (Kneejerk anti-environ-
mentalism?)

-david