Judges reject Viasat’s plea to stop SpaceX Starlink satellite launches(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Judges reject Viasat’s plea to stop SpaceX Starlink satellite launches
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/07/spacex-wins-court-ruling-that-lets-it-continue-launching-starlink-satellites/
83 comments
Not a lawyer, but… generally in the US you need “standing” to file a suit. That is, you have to show that somehow you have a material interest in the issue to be decided.
I couldn’t force a suit saying the FCC was required to do an environmental study, and they didn’t study the light reflected from SpaceX satellites so the approval for the satellites is invalid. I just don’t have any standing there. The US legal system being what it is “It is hurting my business, I am losing dollars.” is pretty good at providing “standing”.
I couldn’t force a suit saying the FCC was required to do an environmental study, and they didn’t study the light reflected from SpaceX satellites so the approval for the satellites is invalid. I just don’t have any standing there. The US legal system being what it is “It is hurting my business, I am losing dollars.” is pretty good at providing “standing”.
Exactly right. Put another way, Viasat is saying "I will lose money because my service is worse, and I will be in a disadvantaged position because we followed the rules and the FCC allowed SpaceX not to.
If there was no material impact to Viasat's business, they wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit.
The courts will decide if SpaceX/FCC acted unfairly towards Viasat by allowing SpaceX to operate under a different set of rules - again, causing Viasat's product to be worse and having a material impact to Viasat's business.
If there was no material impact to Viasat's business, they wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit.
The courts will decide if SpaceX/FCC acted unfairly towards Viasat by allowing SpaceX to operate under a different set of rules - again, causing Viasat's product to be worse and having a material impact to Viasat's business.
Does the harm have to be financial? Can I sue because Starlink interferes with my pursuit of observational astronomy?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the answer is yes, in theory. In practice, the primary people that could legitimately make that argument would be the observatories of universities or the like, people with substantial and well-documented prior interest in the act. In fact this concern was raised before. I don’t think any went as far as suing, though.
That makes sense. I know there is a lot of resentment in the astronomy community over Starlink, but suing is a big financial risk.
It's kinda sad to see the astronomy community consider a slight inconvenience to their hobby to be more important than worldwide internet access.
We lost a jumbo jet to the ocean and were unable to find it because we did not have worldwide coverage. How many millions of people are without internet access in rural areas? Don't many consider internet access to be close to a basic human right?
I was considering getting into astronomy myself but do not want to be part of a community like that. It's probably a vocal minority but it's still disappointing.
We lost a jumbo jet to the ocean and were unable to find it because we did not have worldwide coverage. How many millions of people are without internet access in rural areas? Don't many consider internet access to be close to a basic human right?
I was considering getting into astronomy myself but do not want to be part of a community like that. It's probably a vocal minority but it's still disappointing.
> It's kinda sad to see the astronomy community consider a slight inconvenience to their hobby to be more important than worldwide internet access.
Astronomy is more than a hobby for quite a few people: it’s also an actual scientific field.
Astronomy is more than a hobby for quite a few people: it’s also an actual scientific field.
The satellites can be subtracted out of the image more easily than the atmosphere can, this isn't an issue for actual scientists.
Cheaper access to space also means more cheap space-based satellites which provide much higher image quality.
A telescope constellation would be pretty amazing and would allow astronomy pictures never before possible, similar to the black hole image. A constellation like that could create an effective aperture larger than the earth.
Cheaper access to space also means more cheap space-based satellites which provide much higher image quality.
A telescope constellation would be pretty amazing and would allow astronomy pictures never before possible, similar to the black hole image. A constellation like that could create an effective aperture larger than the earth.
> We lost a jumbo jet to the ocean and were unable to find it because we did not have worldwide coverage.
This does not appear to be a correct statement.
The jet was in contact with satellites, and was well within the coverage area. This is how the Inmarsat technicians were able to provide information about the possible flight path. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370_s...
This does not appear to be a correct statement.
The jet was in contact with satellites, and was well within the coverage area. This is how the Inmarsat technicians were able to provide information about the possible flight path. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370_s...
This is where cost and bandwidth matter. If you have satellite coverage but can't afford or don't have the bandwidth to continually stream GPS position and other metrics then it's not very useful.
It's pretty ridiculous we don't stream blackbox data in realtime in instead record it locally like it's still the 1950s.
It's pretty ridiculous we don't stream blackbox data in realtime in instead record it locally like it's still the 1950s.
How could thousands of satellites launched every year be a solution to bringing internet to the whole world? Do you have any idea how expensive Starlink will be? Whole villages won't be able to afford a single base station at current prices, and they are losing money today.
I'm a westerner, but lived in a village in Indonesia for 6 weeks. I agree the cost of a base station + monthly fees would be exorbitant for most living in the village as currently priced for the US market. Interesting note though, they had satellite dishes with pirate decoders to watch satellite TV, which gave them access to things like American movies. This is in a place where a cup of coffee was $0.10 and a pack of cigarettes was something like $1. The family I lived with had four kids, the father climbed trees to collect juice to ferment into tuak, which they sold at a roadside stop for something like $0.05/bottle. They also had a small farm. They were able to afford running non-potable water, electricity, TV + satellite dish + decoder, and cheap cell phones with data connections. I'm sure Starlink would be priced in a way that was affordable in the local economy should it get there, and that people that have no other internet options will take it up and join the modern world. I think that will be a net win for society.
Not a direct reply, but Starlink will also enable some interesting scenarios around open internet access in places where it doesn't exist today - like the Middle East during the Arab Spring, or in China, or in North Korea.
Not a direct reply, but Starlink will also enable some interesting scenarios around open internet access in places where it doesn't exist today - like the Middle East during the Arab Spring, or in China, or in North Korea.
> I'm sure Starlink would be priced in a way that was affordable in the local economy should it get there
But this is the problem: it can't. With cables, the cost is location dependent because it is dominated by the local cost of work.
But starlink has limited bandwidth, and their cost is dominated by the satellites and launches, and by the work of highly skilled engineers in America. Every extra subscriber costs them a lot, and they can't make money by launching millions of dollars worth of satellites and charging 10$ a month.
> Not a direct reply, but Starlink will also enable some interesting scenarios around open internet access in places where it doesn't exist today - like the Middle East during the Arab Spring, or in China, or in North Korea.
Why do you think that? Satellite signals are easy to detect and jam, unfortunately. Especially since satellite internet requires you to transmit, not just receive. If you were right, those places would already have satellite television access to news around the world.
But this is the problem: it can't. With cables, the cost is location dependent because it is dominated by the local cost of work.
But starlink has limited bandwidth, and their cost is dominated by the satellites and launches, and by the work of highly skilled engineers in America. Every extra subscriber costs them a lot, and they can't make money by launching millions of dollars worth of satellites and charging 10$ a month.
> Not a direct reply, but Starlink will also enable some interesting scenarios around open internet access in places where it doesn't exist today - like the Middle East during the Arab Spring, or in China, or in North Korea.
Why do you think that? Satellite signals are easy to detect and jam, unfortunately. Especially since satellite internet requires you to transmit, not just receive. If you were right, those places would already have satellite television access to news around the world.
Citation needed on satellite signals being easy to jam. These satellites are moving rapidly across the sky, with directional (phased) antenna arrays tracking them. To have a good chance at jamming, your transmitter needs to remain in the path of the signal.
I think you're reasoning off incorrect premises: the starlink satellites are only relaying to relatively local base stations. In a sense, they're basically acting as a synthetic ionosphere to bounce signals off to reach base stations that wouldn't otherwise be line-of-sight, but which are still regional. And as such, they don't have nearly the same bandwidth limitations as more conventional satellites have.
Launches will only get cheaper over time. The base station is also likely to decrease in price over time due to economies of scale.
Starlink is one of the very few satellite providers that can provide enough bandwidth (due to the large constellation) that an entire village could share a single base station.
Starlink is one of the very few satellite providers that can provide enough bandwidth (due to the large constellation) that an entire village could share a single base station.
> Launches will only get cheaper over time. The base station is also likely to decrease in price over time due to economies of scale.
This is much more true for cable than it is for satellite launches, a d yet it hasn't really happened.
> Starlink is one of the very few satellite providers that can provide enough bandwidth (due to the large constellation) that an entire village could share a single base station.
Starlink needs a huge paying base to pay for the huge cost of the constellation, which needs to be rebuilt and re-launched every 5 years. Every extra customer reduces the bandwidth that the constellation can offer to every other customer, so overall their cost per customer will be exorbitant.
Remember that the prices we are seeing today are heavily subsidized by the US government, and they are anyway selling at a considerable loss. The bandwidth we are seeing today is the bandwidth of 1600 satellites and a handful of customers - it is basically a best case scenario, at least for the current technology.
This is much more true for cable than it is for satellite launches, a d yet it hasn't really happened.
> Starlink is one of the very few satellite providers that can provide enough bandwidth (due to the large constellation) that an entire village could share a single base station.
Starlink needs a huge paying base to pay for the huge cost of the constellation, which needs to be rebuilt and re-launched every 5 years. Every extra customer reduces the bandwidth that the constellation can offer to every other customer, so overall their cost per customer will be exorbitant.
Remember that the prices we are seeing today are heavily subsidized by the US government, and they are anyway selling at a considerable loss. The bandwidth we are seeing today is the bandwidth of 1600 satellites and a handful of customers - it is basically a best case scenario, at least for the current technology.
As far as I know, starlink has not been subsidized by the government. They recently won an rdof grant to provide service to rural areas in the US, but this grant was received after most of the satellites were in orbit.
Musk always seems to be thinking two steps ahead, so perhaps Starlink is just an enabler for a future, more profitable product.
Musk always seems to be thinking two steps ahead, so perhaps Starlink is just an enabler for a future, more profitable product.
Would a Peter Thiel like situation only work if it was done the same way - billionaire funds some one at a university? A billionaire themselves wouldn’t have grounds for a case for saying their astronomical observations are being messed with. This is assuming they do have some what of an astronomy hobby.
[deleted]
>they wouldn't even be able to file the lawsuit
Pedantic, but anyone can file a lawsuit about almost anything, regardless of proof or standing or lack thereof. The barrier to doing so is negligible. It would get dismissed at the earliest consideration, but the point is that the filing of a lawsuit means incredibly little.
Pedantic, but anyone can file a lawsuit about almost anything, regardless of proof or standing or lack thereof. The barrier to doing so is negligible. It would get dismissed at the earliest consideration, but the point is that the filing of a lawsuit means incredibly little.
That’s the theory. In practice, if judges want you to succeed, they’ll accept that you have standing even on very flimsy argument.
Sure sometimes trial court judges make politically influenced rulings but those are usually eventually overturned on appeal.
For cases like this where the defendant is powerful, right? Since otherwise if the defendant is a random small org or person, they wouldn’t have the means to fight the case much in the first place. Or no?
Where eventually and on appeal means $$$$$$
> My opinion is that if a company needs government help to thwart competition, then competition is absolutely needed.
This is not as simple as that. The current waiver on environmental studies for satellite launches was put in place in an era (the 80s) where individual satellites were not considered a threat. Now we're launching 'constellations'.
It does really smell like some Oracle-level lawsuit driven anti-competitive behavior from viasat. However, as always, the truth is somewhere down the middle.
This is not as simple as that. The current waiver on environmental studies for satellite launches was put in place in an era (the 80s) where individual satellites were not considered a threat. Now we're launching 'constellations'.
It does really smell like some Oracle-level lawsuit driven anti-competitive behavior from viasat. However, as always, the truth is somewhere down the middle.
Looks like they are arguing - hwe followed every procedure leading to a poorer quality service, but they are breaking rules and will out compete us.
However, I wonder how the intersection of regulatory frameworks with rapid tech progress intersect here.
I know that until Elon came around, satellite internet was a costly special use affair. So, perhaps the rules ought to be changed but govt moves slower than pvt companies, so they missed the chance.
Also, large scale satellite deployments for broadband internet on a global scale is extremely fresh territory.
However, I wonder how the intersection of regulatory frameworks with rapid tech progress intersect here.
I know that until Elon came around, satellite internet was a costly special use affair. So, perhaps the rules ought to be changed but govt moves slower than pvt companies, so they missed the chance.
Also, large scale satellite deployments for broadband internet on a global scale is extremely fresh territory.
Elon changed nothing about price. He's selling a heavily subsidized terminal that will eventually need to be recouped.
I hope starlink bankrupts these companies.
It really bothers me when companies that have failed to adapt throw their weight around by trying to leverage legislation to kill competition.
Cable telecoms, car dealerships, turbo tax, etc.
It really bothers me when companies that have failed to adapt throw their weight around by trying to leverage legislation to kill competition.
Cable telecoms, car dealerships, turbo tax, etc.
> companies that have failed to adapt
Because they followed the rules while Elon’s companies ignore them? Because that’s what this lawsuit is about.
Because they followed the rules while Elon’s companies ignore them? Because that’s what this lawsuit is about.
They didn't ignore the rules. The FCC reviewed Starlink's plans and agreed to modifications of the rules based on the assessment that Starlink met the requirements in a way that didn't require an in-depth environmental review.
That’s not what this lawsuit is about.
Frankly that’s a bullshit excuse viasat is making and thankfully the court system knows that and the judge is throwing it out.
With 5+ years of notice of the changing landscape and seeing starlink/spacex progress the geosat companies did nothing.
They’re not even really alleging it’s because they followed rules and spacex didn’t - they’re more complaining that the environmental review for spacex from the FCC wasn’t “enough” (which the FCC disagrees with). It’s not like viasat tried to do LEO and was blocked because of rules.
It’s basically the satellite company equivalent of NIMBY building suits about shadows on a park. The true motives are elsewhere.
This is just a company that sees the writing on the wall using their legal team to try to find ways to stop their competitor rather than actually competing on the merits of their product.
The faster they go bankrupt, the better it’ll be for actual players in the space building real tech.
Frankly that’s a bullshit excuse viasat is making and thankfully the court system knows that and the judge is throwing it out.
With 5+ years of notice of the changing landscape and seeing starlink/spacex progress the geosat companies did nothing.
They’re not even really alleging it’s because they followed rules and spacex didn’t - they’re more complaining that the environmental review for spacex from the FCC wasn’t “enough” (which the FCC disagrees with). It’s not like viasat tried to do LEO and was blocked because of rules.
It’s basically the satellite company equivalent of NIMBY building suits about shadows on a park. The true motives are elsewhere.
This is just a company that sees the writing on the wall using their legal team to try to find ways to stop their competitor rather than actually competing on the merits of their product.
The faster they go bankrupt, the better it’ll be for actual players in the space building real tech.
Doesn't that sound more like "fear of UNFAIR competition"?
Is it a surprise that existing vendors claim that a newcomer with superior technology is competing unfairly?
If they're actually not following required governmental procedures*, then it seems like they may well be competing unfairly.
* - This is something that it seems the courts are well positioned to rule upon and about which I have no opinion.
* - This is something that it seems the courts are well positioned to rule upon and about which I have no opinion.
I think a Mexican restaurant that has to comply with a raft full of regulations about grill temperature, cooler temperature, counter time, disinfectants, labor practices, business licensing and taxes, etc. can rightfully complain about a taco truck that shows up with no license, no inspections, no license plate, and underage employees serving beer.
Of course, sometimes the incumbents spend many years constructing regulation after regulation to build a moat. Then somebody comes along with the funding to defy all those regulations. And the incumbent complains that the newcomer is ruining the moat.
Sometimes it takes a good deal of wisdom and discernment to decide which rules are moats and which are legit. Then it takes character to tear down what should be torn down and defend what should be defended.
Of course, sometimes the incumbents spend many years constructing regulation after regulation to build a moat. Then somebody comes along with the funding to defy all those regulations. And the incumbent complains that the newcomer is ruining the moat.
Sometimes it takes a good deal of wisdom and discernment to decide which rules are moats and which are legit. Then it takes character to tear down what should be torn down and defend what should be defended.
Maybe Viasat’s shareholders are gangsters and the executives need to show that they tried
VSAT is primarily owned by large hedge funds and mutual funds, just like most other publicly traded companies.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VSAT/holders?p=VSAT
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/VSAT/holders?p=VSAT
So, yep. "Gangsters" confirmed.
SpaceX announced their plans years ago, all the way back to 2015.[1]
Satellite companies have six years to plan and respond.
ViaSat have no excuses if they're worried about their competitor. It's amazing about the depth of complacency that the space industry in general sunk to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
Satellite companies have six years to plan and respond.
ViaSat have no excuses if they're worried about their competitor. It's amazing about the depth of complacency that the space industry in general sunk to.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
ULA sat around and produced studies for years arguing that reusable rockets were either impossible or wouldn't actually save any money. The latter claim is absurd at first glance, but they argued and pushed it even past the time when Falcon cores were being reused.
Space launch and ISPs are both industries that are accustomed to fat cost-plus contracts, subsidies with no accountability, and market protection from government. They've lived that way for decades, resulting in companies that I'm sure are optimized top to bottom for suckling at the government teat.
Space launch and ISPs are both industries that are accustomed to fat cost-plus contracts, subsidies with no accountability, and market protection from government. They've lived that way for decades, resulting in companies that I'm sure are optimized top to bottom for suckling at the government teat.
This is classic ISP behavior. Doesn't matter if the medium is a radio link from satellites in space or a coaxial cable or optical fiber cable on the ground - ISPs gonna do what ISPs gonna do - try in any way to block competition.
Without SpaceX, you're in a world where each LEO launch costs $500M and the tech is not good enough for handovers so you make that even worse by going to GEO. Even without being an ISP it is a monumental challenge to overcome.
I think the issue is Viasat think they are being shortchanged by the FCC to help Elon.
Viasat is a truly garbage company. When I was a hostage... er, customer... I poked around on my ViaSat router and made some interesting finds. If you're a user, go to your viasat modem IP address and append '/messages' to see the boot log. It gets purged eventually so this is most fun after a reboot. My internet 'went down' and they wanted to charge me a hundred bucks to send out a tech. The phone support lady could see my modem's telemetry data, so there wasn't a physical problem. I looked at the boot log and saw "firmware update disabled." and an "outdated firmware" error that kept repeating after my modem stopped working. They refused to replace it without first sending out a tech at my expense to inspect my equipment. From my perspective it sure looked a whole lot like they remotely bricked my modem to collect an extra $100 bucks. Another interesting find? javascript code for their inflight wifi systems, with different code for a bunch of different models of commercial aircraft, and a mysterious "kingabdullah" mode.
Do Viasat's launches go through the same type of environmental impact study they're saying SpaceX should go through? I couldn't tell from the article whether the FCC let SpaceX skip a step (legitimately or not), or whether Viasat is arguing for a new regulation to be applied to SpaceX that doesn't currently exist.
I think their point is that thousands of satellites in LEO is different than a half dozen in geo synchronous orbit. You can see starlink satellites from the ground as they orbit, and there's much greater chance of collisions with how their orbits work.
I think Viasat is mainly hoping to stall SpaceX as they see their business crumbling around them rapidly, but there's some fair questions.
I think Viasat is mainly hoping to stall SpaceX as they see their business crumbling around them rapidly, but there's some fair questions.
I did some digging, and apparently all launches have been exempt, including Viasats
https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/viasat-presses-fcc-to...
So they are looking for new regulation, based on some rather spurious claims.
https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/viasat-presses-fcc-to...
So they are looking for new regulation, based on some rather spurious claims.
No satellite has ever had to do an environmental impact study -- the FCC/FAA has a blanket waiver for everyone.
The FCC does regulate debris and re-entry hazards. Constellations like SpaceX's have much more strict rules than GEO satellites like Viasat's.
The FCC does regulate debris and re-entry hazards. Constellations like SpaceX's have much more strict rules than GEO satellites like Viasat's.
Satellites in geosync are very VERY far away; much farther than Starlink's LEOs. So the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced; the risk of altering the appearance of the night sky is similarly reduced by the distance.
> the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced
This isn't really a risk, it's a feature. "Crashing" into the atmosphere means you slow down from orbital velocity and re-enter instead of polluting the orbital environment. It's much worse if you stay in orbit, occupying valuable space, and risking collisions that will create debris clouds occupying much more valuable space (and potentially resulting in chain reactions).
SpaceX has long since designed it's satellites to fully burn up as they re-enter the atmosphere to remove the risk that they'll hit someone on the ground, but even for satellites where that hasn't happened, it's generally preferred that they re-enter the atmosphere than hang out dead in valuable orbits.
This isn't really a risk, it's a feature. "Crashing" into the atmosphere means you slow down from orbital velocity and re-enter instead of polluting the orbital environment. It's much worse if you stay in orbit, occupying valuable space, and risking collisions that will create debris clouds occupying much more valuable space (and potentially resulting in chain reactions).
SpaceX has long since designed it's satellites to fully burn up as they re-enter the atmosphere to remove the risk that they'll hit someone on the ground, but even for satellites where that hasn't happened, it's generally preferred that they re-enter the atmosphere than hang out dead in valuable orbits.
It's a risk, and the FCC requires that you plan on not killing people on the ground if your satellites are going to re-enter.
And the FAA required that you plan on not killing people on the ground when your plane lands.
He said it's not a risk in the sence that it's not something you avoid, it's something you use regularly. He did not mean "you can just YOLO it"
He said it's not a risk in the sence that it's not something you avoid, it's something you use regularly. He did not mean "you can just YOLO it"
Crashing into the ground is a risk, crashing into the atmosphere not so much.
The Starlink satellites are tiny; they burn up in the upper atmosphere and never reach the ground.
That's the FAA requiring that, not FCC.
On the other hand, geosynchronous satellites won’t ever clean themselves up and if control is lost on one, it’ll continue to be a problem for thousands of years or until a retrieval craft is sent up. There’s not even really much of an opportunity to safely de-orbit if failure is anticipated because they’re so far out.
With Starlink, in the worst case scenario dead satellites will be in orbit for 2-3 years, and if signs of giving out start showing up SpaceX can quickly and safely steer it to burn up, with a cheap (and likely updated) replacement being sent up within a month.
With Starlink, in the worst case scenario dead satellites will be in orbit for 2-3 years, and if signs of giving out start showing up SpaceX can quickly and safely steer it to burn up, with a cheap (and likely updated) replacement being sent up within a month.
If a geostationary satellite is still operational when it reaches end of life then the operators are supposed to use the remaining fuel to move it to a safe graveyard orbit. Of course that doesn't always work.
I used to use satellite internet like Viasat (Hughesnet), and there's a good goddamn reason I'm using Starlink now. At first I was convinced that our slow speeds and high latency were just a limitation of the technology, and the folks at Hughesnet were trying their hardest: boy was I wrong. They started introducing insanely low data caps (25gb/month), and charging us $15/gb overage.
I hope they go out of business. Their services were clearly exploitative, and this is a lame excuse to try and stamp out competition.
I hope they go out of business. Their services were clearly exploitative, and this is a lame excuse to try and stamp out competition.
It's bullshit when companies do this.
> Viasat is worried that its slower Internet service delivered from geostationary satellites will lose customers once Starlink is out of beta and more widely available.
So Viasat has two options: improve their offering to remain competitive, or throw a tantrum and start a lawsuit. Yep, of course it's gonna be option two.
> Viasat is worried that its slower Internet service delivered from geostationary satellites will lose customers once Starlink is out of beta and more widely available.
So Viasat has two options: improve their offering to remain competitive, or throw a tantrum and start a lawsuit. Yep, of course it's gonna be option two.
To be fair, this lawsuit is actually competition at work. Viasat is complaining about the allowed _altitude_ of the SpaceX satellites, they didn't literally say to the judge "We don't want any competition, please reject their license".
Their complaint, while obviously futile and pretty pathetic given the alternatives, actually had a positive outcome. From the article:
> The FCC did require SpaceX to explain how it will prevent orbital debris, collisions in space, and casualties upon satellite reentry. The FCC also imposed conditions on the license.
This is more of a situation of 'hey, why do _these_ guys get special treatment??'
Their complaint, while obviously futile and pretty pathetic given the alternatives, actually had a positive outcome. From the article:
> The FCC did require SpaceX to explain how it will prevent orbital debris, collisions in space, and casualties upon satellite reentry. The FCC also imposed conditions on the license.
This is more of a situation of 'hey, why do _these_ guys get special treatment??'
> Viasat is complaining about the allowed _altitude_ of the SpaceX satellites,
Which is as good as complaining about nothing. There's no real reason to complain about a slight lowering in altitude.
Which is as good as complaining about nothing. There's no real reason to complain about a slight lowering in altitude.
Viasat sits at just under 36,000km. Starlink sits at 550km.
A slight lowering of altitude is an extreme understatement.
Just a reminder, Viasat and their partner Ligado Networks (Formerly Lightsqared, remember them?) are a clear and present danger to the continued operability and reliability of the GPS constellation. https://www.gps.gov/spectrum/lightsquared/
Newer version of the same page: https://www.gps.gov/spectrum/ligado/
Isn't all of this orbital junk kind of dangerous for space missions and interferes with astronomical instruments here on earth?
Not in SpaceX’s case. The satellites are in low enough orbit to deorbit themselves naturally if they fail, although they do so faster if using onboard thrusters at end of life. Any debris caused by failure is also likely to deorbit quickly. Not true for higher orbits, like 800km or above.
As far as being visible to sensitive telescopes, that is true, but also not surprising. Telescopes are designed to detect really faint things, so even though Starlink is now almost always darker than the visible limit once fully deployed in operational orbit, it can still show up in sensitive astronomical surveys.
As far as being visible to sensitive telescopes, that is true, but also not surprising. Telescopes are designed to detect really faint things, so even though Starlink is now almost always darker than the visible limit once fully deployed in operational orbit, it can still show up in sensitive astronomical surveys.
The routes are published, I don’t see the big deal of removing a few frames from the composite shot when one fly’s over.
“It’s hard” does not seem like a valid excuse to deny internet to the underserved. Plus, I looked through the manual for the most widely used telescope compositor and it supports tracking published satellite trajectories and automatically dropping the frames when a satellites overhead. It seemed a bit tedious to set up, but the GUI of most of the thing looked positively 1997
“It’s hard” does not seem like a valid excuse to deny internet to the underserved. Plus, I looked through the manual for the most widely used telescope compositor and it supports tracking published satellite trajectories and automatically dropping the frames when a satellites overhead. It seemed a bit tedious to set up, but the GUI of most of the thing looked positively 1997
It's not like we haven't had airplanes in the sky for a while too. Curious people never complain about those getting in the way of their pretty pictures.
a lot of that is probably because planes usually fly during the day, and most of the over night ones are flying over oceans.
Maybe they fly more during the day, but there are tons of red-eye flights over land, plus cargo flights, etc. Check out https://www.flightradar24.com/ in the middle of the night.
Most of the complaints are from astronomers, who aren't taking composite shots, they're taking actual long exposures. Then the repeated passes add up in the exposure.
The long exposure is stitched together digitally. You can remove the offending frames
Not really. Image how many cars there on earths surface. But the earth is far from covered in cars. The surface area of even just geostationary orbit is much bigger, and there are a lot fewer satellites.
I think there’s a big difference between the satellites making little dark spots in the sky and making faint bright spots. Maybe not. Either way I don’t think it’s a problem. If they can cancel out the turbulence of the atmosphere, they can cancel out whatever signal the satellites introduce. But that’s optical. I wonder if having all that metal up there would interfere with radio astronomy?
[deleted]
I would keep asking that question even though they probably know what they're doing with that issue.
ViaSat knows it can just build its own re-usable rockets to be able to price match SpaceX right?
There's no law against that.
There's no law against that.
I am not a lawyer, but if I’m reading this correctly, the only claim here is that the FCC and SpaceX did not follow proper procedure, but the catalyst is fear of competition.
My opinion is that if a company needs government help to thwart competition, then competition is absolutely needed.
Edit: Formatting is having some issues it seems.