Rocketlab acquires Iridium • Hacker News Board

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#281

Post by someonebaggy » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:16 AM UTC

Centigonal wrote: post #108

iamtheworstdev wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh. People already trying to find ways to gate keep space by raising the financial barrier to entry before we've even been able to capitalize on cheap space flights. I'm sure SpaceX and others will be against this until suddenly, they're not, when they realize they're one of the few that can even afford to pay it. Like when Amazon finally had warehouses in all fifty states and suddenly quit campaigning against onlin…

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…

The natural consequence then seems like the competitor might as well launch into that orbit anyway and destroy Starlink?

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#282

Post by hgoel » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:45 AM UTC

rogerrogerr wrote: post #246

hgoel wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me guess, you still think the worlds loneliest buffoon still gives a shit about settling Mars?

He’s been remarkably consistent on the Mars thing for a looooong time.

And then he betrayed all of that when he decided to IPO SpaceX and pivoted to space datacenters. Putting aside all the other things he's done over the past few years to betray his own stated ideals or plans.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#283

Post by sieabahlpark » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:50 AM UTC

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.…

[dead]

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#284

Post by dguest » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 9:53 AM UTC

NetMageSCW wrote: post #214

preg_match wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low earth orbit is actually not very big. And that’s what we’re talking about here.

LEO is about 2000km to 300km - at 50m shells, that’s about 34,000 times the surface of the Earth. It is very, very, very big.

50m shells seems pretty optimistic. I thought some alarms would fire when things are within 1 km.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#285

Post by stinkbeetle » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 10:12 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #265

stinkbeetle wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is regulations like these rarely "pay for externalities". They impose compliance costs or costs to skirt the regulations. CO2 emissions have not been solved despite all the regulations and taxes, quite the opposite they keep increasing and will continue to do so for a long time before even thinking about coming down. In large part because production was moved off shore to countries which have less regulat…

> CO2 emissions have not been solved despite all the regulations and taxes All the? We barely regulate CO2 at all. If we started charging $100 per ton we'd see some massive changes. And it's not hard to stop those loopholes.

> All the?

All the.

> We barely regulate CO2 at all.

Not sure who the "we" is, but many jurisdictions do regulate CO2 heavily. Not only immediate direct taxes, but subsidies to competitors, increased regulatory impositions and effective moratoriums on approvals, sovereign risk factors with many countries legislating and committing to CO2 phase out.

> If we started charging $100 per ton we'd see some massive changes.

Again not sure which we you are talking about, but lots of places have carbon taxes. They do make massive changes when they are priced to do so -- see, the EU. That was the point of my comment. I didn't argue markets don't respond to economic incentives, I clearly was agreeing they do. The effect has not been to solve climate change, it has been to move production offshore to markets that have much higher carbon emission intensity of production!

> And it's not hard to stop those loopholes.

And the fact that these not-hard-to-stop loopholes are not stopped still doesn't make you stop to think? The taxes aren't going to solve problems or pay for externalities, they are funding graft and corruption and stifling competition.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#286

Post by athrowaway3z » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 11:50 AM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #205

athrowaway3z wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wish to take up a specific space, and with the right to use it come obligations. There was no tax or toll to consider. People naturally self-assembled under the idea that if you benefited, then you had to contribute. The calculation was: how much land did you have, how valuable was it, how much benefit you'd get from some waterworks (it wasnt just dikes but also rerouting rivers etc). Obligations were denominated…

Ok but that's not what I asked... You're just saying "we should have some system that benefits everyone". Ok sure that sounds nice, but you compared it to a specific framework with an off-hand "we've solved this so long ago" type of comment. Surely if it's so simple and straightforward and the Dutch "already figured it out" you'd have at least some idea of a proposal or implementation details. How will the toll be co…

You're not really good at asking anything. I did not say a system that benefits everyone.

I did not say the dutch solved this exact problem, and my previous response was a best effort after you prompting me because i assume you've just never thought through or dealt with non-mega-government solutions before.

I brought up the comparison because nba456_ 19 was already complaining about a required mythical global government - as if that's relevant for the 50y time frame we're planning for.

I also dont understand why you keep bringing up tax and tolls. I'll try to answer that again in the other comment.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#287

Post by athrowaway3z » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:00 PM UTC

someonebaggy wrote: post #278

athrowaway3z wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wish to take up a specific space, and with the right to use it come obligations. There was no tax or toll to consider. People naturally self-assembled under the idea that if you benefited, then you had to contribute. The calculation was: how much land did you have, how valuable was it, how much benefit you'd get from some waterworks (it wasnt just dikes but also rerouting rivers etc). Obligations were denominated…

What happened if you didn't pay?

Pay what? Its a 'pure' system where nothing has to be denominated in money but instead we care about effects:

taking-up-orbits, applying-force, and danger-pollution.

The system requires the biggest player calculates the cost of non-compliance being too high either by:

- the scheme triggering a clause where other members start to apply force to their non-sanctioned orbits and trashing their satellites, add in the additional threat of earthly economic sanctions like we do with so many companies.

- the scheme breaking apart and becoming a wild west with _extreme_ danger-pollution.

Clearly, at the moment, the biggest users do not care because the danger is low enough, and they'll try to delay a bit so they get more 'grandfathered' in.

I'm not saying its going to be perfect or fair. I'm arguing its dumb to fear a mythical global government, because that's not required to create stable solutions for these kinds of issues.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#288

Post by ericmay » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:21 PM UTC

athrowaway3z wrote: post #286

ericmay wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok but that's not what I asked... You're just saying "we should have some system that benefits everyone". Ok sure that sounds nice, but you compared it to a specific framework with an off-hand "we've solved this so long ago" type of comment. Surely if it's so simple and straightforward and the Dutch "already figured it out" you'd have at least some idea of a proposal or implementation details. How will the toll be co…

You're not really good at asking anything. I did not say a system that benefits everyone. I did not say the dutch solved this exact problem, and my previous response was a best effort after you prompting me because i assume you've just never thought through or dealt with non-mega-government solutions before. I brought up the comparison because nba456_ 19 was already complaining about a required mythical global govern…

> I did not say a system that benefits everyone.

Ok then the US can just ignore all this stuff and do what we want.

> I also dont understand why you keep bringing up tax and tolls.

I can tell - I think you’re having a hard time here defending an idea you now want to walk back. That’s fine. At the end of the day “collective maintenance” is typically achieved by either a tax or toll. I don’t have to keep bringing it up, but then you need to explain how your proposed system works instead of leaving one to guess. You suggested it was simple because the Dutch “figured it out an millennium ago”.

Without global governance to address what is a global space - you know, space itself, how would your proposal work? American and European companies pay for some maintenance scheme but then China, Russia, and others ignore it? So it’s not global? Who will they pay anyway? Why would they agree to this scheme?

> You're not really good at asking anything.

This is incorrect.

> i assume you've just never thought through or dealt with non-mega-government solutions before.

Based on your inability to describe or walk through your solution I think it’s likely you think you’ve thought through this and you haven’t and now as your comment is being scrutinized you are turning to discussion points that don’t make a lot of sense.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#289

Post by versteegen » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:53 PM UTC

panick21_ wrote: post #270

versteegen wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is false. They were a purely NZ operation launching sub-orbital rockets before they got into DARPA contracts. What you meant to say is "Before they ever launched Electron", and I'm pretty sure that is false too, they weren't "primarily" American, the majority of the workforce was in NZ until years after that.

I'm 99% sure that they went to the US venture to raise money to build Electron and that's when they made the US company that primary and the NZ company the subsidiary.

Yes you are correct. That's one meaning of primary. I just think it's misleading by the more colloquial meaning to say "primarily a US company" when AFAIK basically all the engineering happened in the NZ subsidiary of what was initially more-or-less a USA shell company. Engine manufacture was the first thing they moved to the USA that I know of, after one or two launches IIRC.

Aside, Peter Beck has said (probably at a talk I was at in 2014) that they initially designed and built Electron in NZ so that they would be importing restricted technology into the USA, to minimise ITAR problems, which only covers exports.

Re: Rocketlab acquires Iridium

#290

Post by piltdownman » Tue, Jun 30, 2026, 12:58 PM UTC

lxgr wrote: post #95

piltdownman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

//I don’t think there a unified “market” here. You mean like the ASTS/Vodafone partnership that birthed the Satellite Connect Europe? https://www.vodafone.com/news/newsroom/technology/satellite-... https://www.vodafone.com/news/newsroom/technology/vodafone-a... Or like the US JV where they provide the infra for AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260513491108/en/AST... //Phones don’t…

They didn't circumvent phone antennas being largely omnidirectional (unlike VSAT or phased arrays, which are highly directional) and as a result having much lower gain, they just work with it, just like Iridium, Globalstar, Inmarsat, Thuraya, and all the other early players in what's now called "direct to device". The market is as bimodal as ever on the device side: On one side, you have small, battery-powered, (most…

Well they've circumvented the need for dedicated hardware to achieve NTN on unmodified UE, ahead of any such implementation in the 3GPP specs. The incumbents all rely on dedicated proprietary platforms - not an off-the-shelf Android SoC smartphone which represents the target-device in the developing world

Traditional 5G UEs are inherently size-bound in terms of supporting device-side beamforming at any performant level, so you're limiting the Starlink style Ku-band spectrum sharing through spatial multiplexing afforded by their directional arrays. No argument there.

ASTS are tricking a NTN connection by fooling an unmodified 5G UE into thinking it's connecting to a terrestrial gNodeB, and then handing it off using bent-pipe architecture to the various terrestrial serving gateways. They claim to have flipped the dependency to allow their proprietary phased array satellites to do the heavy Tx/Rx lifting, and have some Doppler Compensation secret sauce to fix the issues on the terrestrial side.