Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 275 posts

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#41

Post by logicx24 »

switz wrote: post #29
hnaccy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? My impression was that the low orbits used by Starlink and similar are the best place for this since it will all naturally deorbit on short timescales. It's just space who cares if we clog it up some with more useful things.

Not OP, but I can think of two reasons – too many LEO satellites can actually hinder views of the night sky[0] and additionally, the risk of kessler syndrome[1]. I'm in no way equipped to give a scientific risk assessment of either, so I'll defer to others to share if they feel it's major concern. But whether these are present issues or not, they're worth considering and thinking about as we move forward with more LE…

Amazing, we now have sky NIMBYs complaining about satellites hindering views.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#42

Post by mgraczyk »

switz wrote: post #29
hnaccy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? My impression was that the low orbits used by Starlink and similar are the best place for this since it will all naturally deorbit on short timescales. It's just space who cares if we clog it up some with more useful things.

Not OP, but I can think of two reasons – too many LEO satellites can actually hinder views of the night sky[0] and additionally, the risk of kessler syndrome[1]. I'm in no way equipped to give a scientific risk assessment of either, so I'll defer to others to share if they feel it's major concern. But whether these are present issues or not, they're worth considering and thinking about as we move forward with more LE…

The night view is a potential issue, but Kessler syndrome is not. These satellites will decay on extremely short timescales. Until many of them start blowing up and launching debris in higher orbit, we don't need to worry too much about this.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#43

Post by Beldin »

marricks wrote: post #37
z3ncyberpunk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual…

I'm sorry but better energy storage and electric cars for the middle class isn't going save us. It's not progress, it's a distraction along the way to ecological collapse.

If electric cars are part is the solution, we need demand for infrastructure (mostly charging, but also maintenance expertise). Middle class-driven Teslas are sufficiently present to have induced building infrastructure, from which other classes can profit.

If electric transportation is not part of the solution, you're right about that being a distraction.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#44

Post by maccam94 »

switz wrote: post #29
hnaccy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? My impression was that the low orbits used by Starlink and similar are the best place for this since it will all naturally deorbit on short timescales. It's just space who cares if we clog it up some with more useful things.

Not OP, but I can think of two reasons – too many LEO satellites can actually hinder views of the night sky[0] and additionally, the risk of kessler syndrome[1]. I'm in no way equipped to give a scientific risk assessment of either, so I'll defer to others to share if they feel it's major concern. But whether these are present issues or not, they're worth considering and thinking about as we move forward with more LE…

Kessler Syndrome is not really an issue at lower LEO, the atmospheric drag quickly (in ~5 years) deorbits anything without functioning propulsion and navigation systems.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#46

Post by bperson »

marricks wrote: post #37
z3ncyberpunk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual…

I'm sorry but better energy storage and electric cars for the middle class isn't going save us. It's not progress, it's a distraction along the way to ecological collapse.

Maybe. It's always possible that as a civilization we are saddled with too many never-going-to-progress-until-we-stop-doing-x technologies. Maybe it's not a distraction, but using a market to develop a capability that will save billions.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#49

Post by mataug »

Amazon always claims to focus on its customers, and ignore its competitors, this is supposed to be an important facet of the "Its always Day 1" philosophy.

These actions, along with Amazon's complaints about Jedi contract seem to imply that amazon has now entered day 2.

PS: I understand that the circumstances around the Jedi contract are different. I'm just trying to make a point that Amazon is now focussing more on its competitors rather than its customers.

Re: Amazon asked FCC to reject Starlink plan because it can’t compete, SpaceX says

#50

Post by [deleted] »

idiotsecant wrote: post #30
joshuamorton wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason that we generally believe that my right to clean drinking water outweighs your right to dump toxic waste in a river, even if it is useful to you. Some doors are very difficult to un-open, and caution is warranted when making sweeping changes to space that may do any number of negative things, including make future spaceflights more difficult, make ground-based space research impossible (increasing…

Demanding clean orbits at deployments with built-in short term decay trajectories is a funny hill to die on though.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN