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

Rocketlab acquires Iridium

investors.rocketlabcorp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 318 posts

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#121

Post by jazzyjackson »

lstodd wrote: post #114
Centigonal wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the arguments Hank makes in the video is that SpaceX is (via starlink) rapidly occupying large portions of useful LEO shells, which crowds out future competitors or users of that orbit (i.e. you can't put more satellites into the orbit without risking collisions, especially satellites that aren't part of the existing constellation), and that the natural consequence of not regulating orbital space in some way w…

[flagged]

Lead by example, my guy, I don’t know what side of the argument you’re even on

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#122

Post by written-beyond »

pelorat wrote: post #40

I like RocketLab. Looking forward to Neutron etc. But this is a bad investment, no other way to put it.

I can't believe I bought a few shares of IRDM with a few hundred bucks in my trading account. Primarily because it was a RKLB adjacent company with decent fundamentals whos stock price wasn't scraping the sky.

I don't know how to feel about this acquisition though. Never thought IRDM would've been a bad investment.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#124

Post by Dig1t »

proee wrote: post #41

We have a bright future full of endless "space-junk". As the price to orbit drops, people will inevitably send up more and more satellites that have questionable value. In 100 years will the sky at night just be a massive grid of dots moving across the sky? Who will create the first advertisement in space using satellites as pixels to create their company logo? Maybe they can add some color and animations for kicks.…

>but instead leave behind micro particles that float around for a long time. People are studying this and hopefully raising appropriate alarms

The number of satellites required to create a measurable number of particles in the planet's atmosphere would be impossibly large. How much mass to orbit do you think is required to create a 1 PPM increase in earth's atmosphere of these "micro particles"?

I find it extremely disheartening how much anti-technology, anti-science, and anti-progress sentiment I read about lately.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#125

Post by Sanzig »

lstodd wrote: post #114
Centigonal wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the arguments Hank makes in the video is that SpaceX is (via starlink) rapidly occupying large portions of useful LEO shells, which crowds out future competitors or users of that orbit (i.e. you can't put more satellites into the orbit without risking collisions, especially satellites that aren't part of the existing constellation), and that the natural consequence of not regulating orbital space in some way w…

[flagged]

Nobody is arguing that space isn't big. The argument is space is big but dynamic, and launching enough stuff up there means that over a sufficiently long time horizon, you will have a collision between uncontrolled objects. This is not a theoretical concern, it has already happened [1].

Collision risk is significantly reduced by having maneuverable spacecraft with good conjunction prediction systems in place. But fundamentally, nothing is perfect and accidents can and do happen - you set a maneuver threshold based on an expected collision probability, but it's an engineering tradeoff: "spend the fuel to maneuver out of the way of everything, no matter how remote, or accept a small collision risk?"

And of course, when you are launching thousands of satellites, you will have a few failures that will become unmaneuverable hazards. Just the way it goes, you can't realistically engineer your way to perfect reliability.

So sorry, I have to reject your claims that it's "utter bullshit." Space debris risk is a well studied field, so much so that satellite insurance companies are starting to fold those calculations into insurance premiums. So yeah, it's real, and it deserves more than a pithy dismissal.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#126

Post by athrowaway3z »

nba456_ wrote: post #64
Centigonal wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hank Green did a video recently advocating for an "orbit value tax" -- like a Georgist Land Value Tax, but for orbits. This tax would, among other things, help fund orbital cleanup and internalize the externality of polluting orbital shells. It's an idea that deserves more discourse IMO. Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLjW6zuYmos

And who does the tax get paid to? Some mythical Global Government that will totally work this time?

The Dutch figured out how to do collective dike maintenance a millennium ago without inventing mythical super government. Collective rules worked just fine.

I encourage you to reflect on this bias. I suspect you're taking the American state as a template, and extrapolating its incompetence. The history is filled with different ideas - some of them far older than America itself.

Hell, I'd call America a place so naturally rich, it's practically the case study how much dysfunction can be papered over with money instead of statecraft.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#127

Post by ck2 »

proee wrote: post #41

We have a bright future full of endless "space-junk". As the price to orbit drops, people will inevitably send up more and more satellites that have questionable value. In 100 years will the sky at night just be a massive grid of dots moving across the sky? Who will create the first advertisement in space using satellites as pixels to create their company logo? Maybe they can add some color and animations for kicks.…

https://satellitemap.space

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#128

Post by notahacker »

Sanzig wrote: post #118
nba456_ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is a global government, otherwise that can't be enforced.

Not at all, it can be handled via international treaty. Frequency allocations for civilian satellites are already handled this way, a UN body (the ITU Radiocommunication bureau in Geneva) acts as a neutral party that handles satellite spectrum coordination between UN member states. The ITU has no enforcement power, but fundamentally that doesn't really matter much, since enforcement is handled by the member states. A…

Also, the number of countries with practical space launch capability is very small. US / China agreement isn't trivial, but if you can get them agreeing to ITU-administered slots, getting ESA, Japan, India, NZ etc is pretty straightforward (and Russia's capacity isn't huge even if they don't want to play ball)

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#129

Post by devindotcom »

lstodd wrote: post #114
Centigonal wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the arguments Hank makes in the video is that SpaceX is (via starlink) rapidly occupying large portions of useful LEO shells, which crowds out future competitors or users of that orbit (i.e. you can't put more satellites into the orbit without risking collisions, especially satellites that aren't part of the existing constellation), and that the natural consequence of not regulating orbital space in some way w…

[flagged]

insightful like your crude, substanceless objection?
Post reply on HN