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

FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

payloadspace.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#41

Post by JaggedJax »

Me1000 wrote: post #33
MichaelCollins wrote: post #2

> The rule shortens the time required for satellite operators to deorbit LEO satellites to no more than 5 years after completing their mission, from 25 years. De-orbiting faster means reserving more propellant for the final de-orbit burn. Since the lifespan of satellites is already generally determined by how much propellant they have, this new rule effectively reduces the lifespan of any satellite high enough to req…

To be honest, this seems quite reasonable. Space is obviously a unique environment, but to use an imperfect analogy: we don't let cars that break down just sit in the middle of the road, and we don't let dilapidated buildings sit unattended until they collapse. There's an externality to leaving a EOL'd satellite in LEO, now these new rules require that externality be priced in. Either through the cost of reserving en…

The future is here! I know of at least one company, Orbit Fab, who already has signed contracts for their in-orbit refueling service. It's a bit early to see how successful or profitable this will be though.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#42

Post by Dracophoenix »

rzimmerman wrote: post #27
Dracophoenix wrote: post #24

When exactly did the FCC's jurisdiction extend to the heavens? There should be a lot more concern than there currently is over an agency granting itself powers over private property in space.

FCC approval is required to communicate with a (US-based) satellite in space, so effectively they can apply rules like this one. It's less of a power grab/nefarious plot and more a utilitarian kind of thing - the FCC has historically been the only agency that has authority to exert this pressure, so the work falls on them. It's admittedly odd that it's not the FAA or Space Force, but that's how it is.

If one were to launch satellites over the United States that communicate with transponders set up in Mexico, the Caribbean, Greenland, and Canada, would that be outside scope of the FCC's jurisdiction?

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#43

Post by MichaelCollins »

chousuke wrote: post #40
MichaelCollins wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking more along the line of the new rule giving another commercial advantage to SpaceX. Starlink will be effected, their satellites already deorbit faster than 5 years. But many other satellite operators will have to launch more frequently, and SpaceX is positioned to meet that growing demand.

I don't really see it as "giving" a commercial advantage to anyone if the new rule's purpose is to prevent something harmful and someone happens to benefit because they're already not doing that harmful thing. In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages and that levelling the playing field somehow would be useful; allowing companies to grow too powerful does cause problems, and I don't t…

> In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages

That's not what I was saying. I was offering an observation, not a critique. I think this new rule is good.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#44

Post by dmckeon »

apendleton wrote: post #13
teawrecks wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no rocket scientist, but could there be a service which knocks satellites out of orbit for people? I wonder how cost effective such a service could get. Could one mission knock 10 satellites out of orbit?

With a vehicle, probably not. Moving form one satellite's orbit to another is extremely fuel-intensive (you'd typically need ~thousands of km/h of velocity change to do it), so it's not really practical to have a single vehicle up there moving from satellite to satellite. But maybe there'd be some other way to do it? There have been proposals for de-orbiting little pieces of debris from the ground with lasers, and I…

A set of satellites that could do laser ablation of debris or EOL sats would be great, but would need safeguards to not become a weapon of economics or war.

Avoiding splash-over or collateral damage to other sats in or near the line-of-sight would be an issue, especially if any of those other sats might have capabilities that their nation/owner might want to keep secret. Perhaps an arrangement of vetos over particular ablation shots would suffice. Countries wanting to hide their interests in some sats could veto N times as many shots as needed, making uncovering which sats are special more difficult.

In any case, laser ablation would need much less delta-V than the usual imagery of plucky space-cowboys chasing errant sats with a net, or some such. Who knew that _Planetes_ would have such a strong effect on our collective imagination.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#45

Post by chousuke »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #43
chousuke wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see it as "giving" a commercial advantage to anyone if the new rule's purpose is to prevent something harmful and someone happens to benefit because they're already not doing that harmful thing. In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages and that levelling the playing field somehow would be useful; allowing companies to grow too powerful does cause problems, and I don't t…

> In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages That's not what I was saying. I was offering an observation, not a critique. I think this new rule is good.

Oh, I didn't really read it as a critique; mostly just the phrasing of "giving another commercial advantage" made me want to comment since it can be read as if that's the (or even just a) purpose of the rule.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#46

Post by bluGill »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #42
rzimmerman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FCC approval is required to communicate with a (US-based) satellite in space, so effectively they can apply rules like this one. It's less of a power grab/nefarious plot and more a utilitarian kind of thing - the FCC has historically been the only agency that has authority to exert this pressure, so the work falls on them. It's admittedly odd that it's not the FAA or Space Force, but that's how it is.

If one were to launch satellites over the United States that communicate with transponders set up in Mexico, the Caribbean, Greenland, and Canada, would that be outside scope of the FCC's jurisdiction?

In general those countries have their own rules that while different amount to the same with different details. The smaller countries generally copy what the US does (or possibly what the EU does).

While you might be able to find a country to let you pick your own rules, you will only be able to talk to your satellite which means you can't do much with it. Most satellite are used for communicating to people on the ground and if you can't communicate to the US the satellite is much less valuable.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#47

Post by bluGill »

Someone1234 wrote: post #34
nonethewiser wrote: post #19

Good improvement. What is China's rules for de-orbiting?

It wouldn't surprise me if they wound up just copying this, making it a de-facto international standard. Space junk is an international problem, nobody wins by it continuously becoming worse. De-orbiting requirements add costs, but space junk damage and or avoidance systems are even more expensive, so this is the cheap solution in the medium to long term.

I would expect that they put their own rules in places that are different enough to be annoying if you need to permission from both countries, but for practical purposes the end result is the same. It may or may not be possible to satisfy the letter of both countries rules though.

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#48

Post by s1artibartfast »

mikeyouse wrote: post #39
s1artibartfast wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but if deorbiting in years is sufficient, the difference in time is not relevant.

What? Starlink eventually wants 40,000 satellites - with 5 year lifetimes that'll be 8,000 per year... there are numerous other planned constellations, so figure something like 15,000 LEO per year within a few decades. 15k satellites per year with a 5 year lifespan and a 1-year decay means you'll be stable at 75k satellites. 5 year lifespan with a 3-year decay means you'll eventually be stable at over 100k satellites…

>That's a massive difference in collision risk.

Is it? It's a big difference in absolute numbers but that doesn't mean it's a meaningful difference in Risk.

If both numbers are quite small relative to the level of concern, the difference can still be irrelevant.

My point is that it takes more than just looking at the number of satilites to understand risk. You need to do the work to show how the collision chance compares to what an acceptable limit might be. Both cases could be very acceptable (or both cases could be unacceptable).

Re: FCC Approves 5 Year Satellite Deorbiting Rule

#49

Post by l33t233372 »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #38
enraged_camel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, various government agencies have jurisdiction over, say, private cars that drive on public roads, so why couldn't you apply similar logic to the FCC with regards to satellite regulation?

No country has any recognized territorial claims to space. Roads are built within and between territories. I don't know of a road built on unclaimed territory that grants a far away government jurisdiction over every car traveling through the said territory, even if these cars used other paths or went off-trail.

The FCC’s jurisdiction only applies to satellites communicating with US based ground stations.
Post reply on HN