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

51–60 of 275 posts

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

#51

Post by esarbe »

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.

You're quite right.

I'm very hopeful that this will get trough to people. Someday.

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

#52

Post by Seanambers »

ajford wrote: post #35
bpodgursky wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a stretch to say they haven't decided; one depends on Starship being approved for launch (and working) in the right timeframe, and the other just uses Falcon 9s. I don't think regulators should force companies to be conservative in unrelated technical development when it doesn't have any material impact on others.

But it does have material impact on others. The Starlink constellations in this proposal are large, and any future development by others will have to account for the orbits of these potential constellations. That's 30k new objects to plan for, and with two configurations at play, that means accounting for essentially 60k objects in motion, effectively doubling the work someone would have to do to plan their deploymen…

If there is limited space, why shouldn't it be first come first serve?

Anyways, it is my impression that space is kinda big..

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

#53

Post by kjksf »

gpt5 wrote: post #4

This seems on par with the process - SpaceX submits a proposal that is open for public scrutiny, and Amazon, which has the incentives to do so, submits feedback on that proposal. Whether the feedback/concerns from Amazon are warranted, that’s up to the FCC to decide. If they decide incorrectly, that’s when I’d start to bring the torches.

You fail to make a distinction between following a process and abusing a process.

Amazon is clearly abusing the process.

It's clear to everyone and their mothers that Amazon is abusing the process.

Find me one comment that says "yeah, Amazon is totally right about that and SpaceX should not get the permits they are asking for".

Abusing a process warrants a bit different response than "oh well, the rules can be abused so it's just fine for Amazon to abuse them".

What makes it even worse is that Bezos publicly complained that this kind of abuse of process is delaying progress in space. It's on tape. You can watch it.

To me this is evil: knowing that some things are bad and doing them anyway when it benefits you.

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

#54

Post by bperson »

jjoonathan wrote: post #20
ROARosen wrote: post #15

Without getting too spaced-out with the the Bezos-Musk dynamics, I personally hate the idea of having private companies getting on the SpaceX bandwagon and clogging up outer space with thousands of satellites.

I personally hate the idea of holding back rural connectivity, mapping, and the general advancement of space-based science and industry in order to preserve the sacrosanct emptiness of certain orbits. Why should your desire for empty orbits outweigh other peoples' desire to put those orbits to productive use?

Their nimbyism is silly. Nothing is going to hold back this next period. The entire planet will be connected soon and that's when the internet moves out of alpha and into beta. Complaining about a few thousand satellites will seem quant in ten years :P

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

#55

Post by pdq »

verdverm wrote: post #33
toxik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We once said the ocean is huge too.

space >>>> air >> ocean > land It is worth considering the ocean is ~2d while air and space are 3d.

The ocean is most certainly 3D. The surface is 2D.

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

#56

Post by MauranKilom »

Seanambers wrote: post #52
ajford wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it does have material impact on others. The Starlink constellations in this proposal are large, and any future development by others will have to account for the orbits of these potential constellations. That's 30k new objects to plan for, and with two configurations at play, that means accounting for essentially 60k objects in motion, effectively doubling the work someone would have to do to plan their deploymen…

If there is limited space, why shouldn't it be first come first serve? Anyways, it is my impression that space is kinda big..

Space is, but low earth orbit isn't. At least not when you want to fill it with millions of circles (not points!) that must keep certain distances from another.

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

#58

Post by colordrops »

verdverm wrote: post #33
toxik wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We once said the ocean is huge too.

space >>>> air >> ocean > land It is worth considering the ocean is ~2d while air and space are 3d.

And there's nothing in space that supports life or the ecosystem.

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

#59

Post by MauranKilom »

smallerfish wrote: post #31
ROARosen wrote: post #15

Without getting too spaced-out with the the Bezos-Musk dynamics, I personally hate the idea of having private companies getting on the SpaceX bandwagon and clogging up outer space with thousands of satellites.

If they're on LEO, what's the big deal? Starlink's satellites have a lifetime of around 10 years before they get pulled back into the atmosphere by gravity.

> before they get pulled back into the atmosphere by gravity.

Irrelevant to the point, but: It's more that they get pulled further down into atmosphere by... atmosphere. With just gravity alone, they'd stay perfectly in orbit.

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

#60

Post by bperson »

joshuamorton wrote: post #24
jjoonathan wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally hate the idea of holding back rural connectivity, mapping, and the general advancement of space-based science and industry in order to preserve the sacrosanct emptiness of certain orbits. Why should your desire for empty orbits outweigh other peoples' desire to put those orbits to productive use?

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…

How many years until a solo hobbyist launches a rocket that crosses the Karman line? I bet as soon as three years and not longer than five years. Ground-based research isn't your only tool in the near future.
Post reply on HN