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

61–70 of 275 posts

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

#61

Post by olivierduval »

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 agree: space is a SHARED place... why should some US corp. be able to pollute it ????? And why should US citizen ONLY have something to say about it ???? I can understand that the US may decide what is above its territory, but I surely dont want to MY french nights with Musk or Bezos satellites... and moreover without my consent !

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

#62

Post by switz »

maccam94 wrote: post #44
switz wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My mistake, I appreciate you correcting me.

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

#63

Post by tayo42 »

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?

I'm kind of curious where you live and how much time you spend outdoors? Or just people with similar opinions in general.

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

#64

Post by verdverm »

pdq wrote: post #55
verdverm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

~2d was intended to imply effectively 2d for human activities, even airspace is probably closer to a layered 2d cake than true 3d like deeper space. LEO may be closer to an extension of airspace due to orbits and gravity. Still, due to the exponential growth with respect to the radius, there is significant room in LEO compared to anything terrestrial.

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

#65

Post by olivierduval »

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?

Your desire - sure! - but ONLY at YOUR home ! And space is not yours...

It looks like noboby learned from air or sea pollution, where SOME people pollute for their own benefit a ressource that they don't own... and then let the others pay to clean it

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

#67

Post by bryanlarsen »

marricks wrote: post #11

I disdain the owners of both but Bezos (fairly) seems to get a bit more ire here. The Verge’s piece elaborated that SpaceX hasn’t decided between two configurations and want approval for both even though they will only choose one, so everyone else has to plan around two different configurations. I’m not sure if that’s standard procedure but it does seem a bit unfair to add double work for everyone else.

> so everyone else has to plan around two different configurations.

Which just requires choosing a different shell (altitude). It takes me more effort to write this post.

It's more work during launch and orbit raise, but at that point you don't have to worry about hypothetical or future satellites, only the existing ones. Space is big, it's easy to avoid millions of satellites, as long as they're actively powered and you know where they are.

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

#68

Post by stefan_ »

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.

Is there a comment you wanted to make? Because yes, the process is perfectly well understood. This is about the merits.

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

#69

Post by verdverm »

colordrops wrote: post #58
verdverm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depends, could our increased use of satellite based sensing be used to support and improve the terrestrial situation?

Is the tradeoff worth it?

It is certain that your life today would not be the same without GPS, so in a sense it does support it.

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

#70

Post by lostlogin »

kjksf wrote: post #53
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…

Another way of looking at this - if you can defend against the most motivated detractor, it seems unlikely there are holes in your plan.
Post reply on HN