SpaceX spat with Viasat: Rival accused of abusing legislation to halt Elon's Starlink expansion SpaceX has accused a satellite telecommunications rival of trying to a weaponise environmental legislation to hamper the expansion of its Starlink internet service. Elon Musk's business said this in a response filed on Monday [PDF] in an ongoing legal dispute with Viasat, Dish Network, and consulting firm The Balance Group. …
you'd think they could afford an actual SCIENTIST who would tell them that below 600km altitude orbits decay in relatively short time frame.
According to NASA "Debris left in orbits below 370 miles (600 km) normally fall back to Earth within several years."
I'd say a collision at THAT altitude is much less dangerous "to the environment" than advertised...
It depends how many bits end up there. If enough junk was out there, it could make other activities in that orbit problematic. The orbit is small, so if there was enough debris from collisions, other satellites in the area might have to be repositioned frequently to avoid hitting some of it. It's not a long-term risk because the junk will eventually deorbit, but something which makes other activities untenable could still be a risk. That said, I think Spacex has proven to have the ability to perform the required maneuvers, so they can probably avoid collisions if they're held responsible for any failures.
"That said, I think Spacex has proven to have the ability to perform the required maneuvers, so they can probably avoid collisions if they're held responsible for any failures."
But can they really reliably monitor such a vast fleet in real time? Or is a lot of the monitoring "AI", or Tesla "Autopilot" grade stuff?
The coat with armour plated brolly ----->
"Given that they don't expect there to be any white lorries performing a turn in front of the satellite, I guess Autopilot will be fine."
I don't know about colours, but satellite are often described as the "size of a shool bus". Maybe if they are bright yellow like all US school buses then the Starlinks can see and avoid them.
But can they really reliably monitor such a vast fleet in real time? Or is a lot of the monitoring "AI", or Tesla "Autopilot" grade stuff?
Satellite orbit analysis and prediction is pretty straightforward. The satellites obey Newton's Laws of motion and the position and velocity are knowable. Unlike that old rusty Buick in the right hand lane, they pretty much can't suddenly speed up and cut you off while signaling for a right turn. I imagine that keeping track of 10000 satellites is non-trivial, but it should be doable and shouldn't require stuff like AI that will likely never work reliably..
Heck, the software should even be testable.
Exactly. ISS orbits between 370 and 480km above the planet, so the view that "oh, if the orbit decays, the satellite debris will quickly fall into the atmosphere" is dangerous and dismissive. We've seen what happened to Canadarm (the Canadian grapple arms on ISS) when a tiny bit of debris hits at speed.
I'd very much prefer seeing these hundreds of little satellites in LEO go away. They're already causing issues with earth-based astronomy.
"It's not a long-term risk because the junk will eventually deorbit"
Sort of. The junk will deorbit, but it will also be immediately replaced by new junk, since the whole point is to constantly replace the satellites rather than just put them up once and then not have any left once they all deorbit. It will eventually reach an equillibrium at some point after the maximum size of the constellation is reached, but at least for a while there will be a constant increase in the amount of junk. So while each individual piece of junk isn't a long term risk, a constellation of continuously replaced junk could be.
Of course the complaint filed by a rival is intending to weaponize the law for commercial reasons, and of course a company cares more about the environmental problems caused by their competitors than caused by someone unrelated or themselves (note: Viasat operates geosynchronous satellites, so the same complaints don't apply to them). These things are unsurprising and unimportant.
The only important thing is whether the allegations made by Viasat while attempting to set up roadblocks are true. Did Spacex/the FCC manage to circumvent the required environmental approvals? If you sue me because you don't like me and want to make my life difficult, but I actually did something illegal, then I'm still at fault and the suit is still valid.
I think Elon should pull on his red boots, click his heels together, turn three times widdershins and shout "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome competitor?"
Hey. It's a cheap option. I don't think it is illegal. Something along that line reportedly worked for Henry II. And I doubt anyone outside a small circle of friends is really all that attached to Viasat and their lawyers. (To judge Viasat's popularity, read the comments at https://www.whistleout.com/Internet/Guides/viasat-internet-review-how-good-is-it)
Don't you find strange that Starlink asks to be able to go to lower orbits at a time when Jeff B. will use his own rocket to go into orbit?
What is the probability of an unforeseen malfunction that would see some or all of these satellites converge on a collision course with a Blue rocket?
Viasat has nothing to lose, and everything (including a few years respite) to gain.
If LEO-based ISPs manage to pull off their ambitious plans Viasat is (mostly doomed). Aside from the issue of space debris, I believe they have pointed to the visual impact of LEO-satellites. It will be interesting to see if the courts will go along with that as an environmental issue. If they do it may well have consequences for other areas like wind turbine farms. After all, they too negatively impact the visual environment.
I suspect that in the end various groups will rally around SpaceX for that reason and allow the satellites to ruin the view for astronomers - for the common good. After all, without ubiquitous access to Facebook humanity is doomed. I mean, without universal access to telemedicine, of course.
I found this amusing: https://spacenews.com/viasat-books-falcon-heavy-for-viasat-3-launch/ (still planned for this year, as far as I can tell).
Even when the companies are at each others' throats, it apparently makes commercial sense for SpaceX to launch a competitor's satellite.
(It looks like they wanted different providers for each launch: the other two are Ariane and Atlas.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
