5 ms·

It's probably the BOM cost. I've seen the "burn up in the atmosphere" constraint before, and it struck me as a bit crazy for Shoot First and Ask Questions Late

It's probably the BOM cost. I've seen the "burn up in the atmosphere" constraint before, and it struck me as a bit crazy for Shoot First and Ask Questions Later SpaceX to care about this

jccooper 6y ago
Demisability is a significant regulatory concern... but I suspect it wasn't flying before mostly because they didn't have it working yet.
jandrese 6y ago
That requirement could have come from the government. It's not a crazy thing to ask for when you're launching literally hundreds of satellites into LEO. Plus, the last thing SpaceX wants is a news story about killer satellites raining debris on innocent citizens. Remember that each satellite launched has to be deorbited eventually, so if they're launching dozens of sats per month they'll eventually be deorbiting dozens of sats per month. If they don't fully burn up each one will have a chance of hitting someone. Sure the chance may be very small, but when you're rolling the dice dozens or hundreds of times per month eventually you're going to land on snake eyes.
temp667 6y ago
They are explicitly pursuing a demisable sat design. Note - despite other posters claims, this is not a requirement and there are other approaches as well for the safety side here. The most common is to deorbit into the ocean (the sats are maneuverable) with a failure rate and part hazard rate low enough that remaining risk is minimized. I would expect they would deorbit into ocean / near non-populated areas for other reasons as well.
Tuna-Fish 6y ago
> I've seen the "burn up in the atmosphere" constraint before, and it struck me as a bit crazy for Shoot First and Ask Questions Later SpaceX to care about this SpaceX has never been even a little careless about following laws, regulations and staying within the lines of their FCC/FAA authorizations. There is this reputation surrounding them, probably because of their visible and often explosive development practices, an because Tesla absolutely does play fast and loose with regulations, but for SpaceX it is not just entirely baseless, it's sort of the exact opposite of the truth. When FCC tells SpaceX to jump, SpaceX asks how high on the way up. Demisability standards were among the constraints of their license, so SpaceX made sure to not just meet the requirements, but well exceed them, which is what they always do. Why Musk likes to flout all rules at Tesla and yet follows rules strictly at SpaceX probably as a lot to do with how the regulators are generally pretty toothless about doing anything to Tesla, while either the FCC or the FAA could pretty much shut SpaceX down for as long as they like should SpaceX try to play cute with them. Enforcers with actual ability to enforce rules tend to be respected more.
- shaklee3 6y ago
  SpaceX absolutely does not follow fcc guidelines. There have been numerous occasions, including changing all their satellites to 550km altitude without getting proper approval where they do it and ask for forgiveness later.
  - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
    > SpaceX absolutely does not follow fcc guidelines. There have been numerous occasions, including changing all their satellites to 550km altitude without getting proper approval where they do it and ask for forgiveness later. No. You have been misinformed, they have always asked for the authorization first. For the orbit modification to 550km, they asked on 2018-11-08, were granted permission on 2019-04-26, and started launching a month after that. [0][1] [0]: https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Launches
    - shaklee3 6y ago
      No, the point is you aren't allowed to do that. The initial filing for their satellites in the frequencies that they were requesting were for a certain altitudes. Without a brand new filing (not an amendment). They didn't do that.
      - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
        This is an argument that has been forwarded by Starlink competitors. FCC vehemently disagrees with it. I would rather go with FCC's interpretation on this, rather than competing commercial entities who have a vested interest in one outcome. If FCC didn't like the amendment, they could have just said no.
        shaklee3 6y ago
        Everyone else had to play by the same rules until SpaceX doesn't. You say it's fair, but certainly if you were in that industry as a competitor it appears as favoritism. They also lie to push things through, like rate of decay, speeds offered, latency.

It's probably the BOM cost. I've seen the "burn up in the atmosphere" constraint before, and it struck me as a bit crazy for Shoot First and Ask Questions Later SpaceX to care about this

jccooper 6y ago

Demisability is a significant regulatory concern... but I suspect it wasn't flying before mostly because they didn't have it working yet.

jandrese 6y ago

That requirement could have come from the government. It's not a crazy thing to ask for when you're launching literally hundreds of satellites into LEO. Plus, the last thing SpaceX wants is a news story about killer satellites raining debris on innocent citizens. Remember that each satellite launched has to be deorbited eventually, so if they're launching dozens of sats per month they'll eventually be deorbiting dozens of sats per month. If they don't fully burn up each one will have a chance of hitting someone. Sure the chance may be very small, but when you're rolling the dice dozens or hundreds of times per month eventually you're going to land on snake eyes.

temp667 6y ago

They are explicitly pursuing a demisable sat design. Note - despite other posters claims, this is not a requirement and there are other approaches as well for the safety side here. The most common is to deorbit into the ocean (the sats are maneuverable) with a failure rate and part hazard rate low enough that remaining risk is minimized. I would expect they would deorbit into ocean / near non-populated areas for other reasons as well.

Tuna-Fish 6y ago

> I've seen the "burn up in the atmosphere" constraint before, and it struck me as a bit crazy for Shoot First and Ask Questions Later SpaceX to care about this SpaceX has never been even a little careless about following laws, regulations and staying within the lines of their FCC/FAA authorizations. There is this reputation surrounding them, probably because of their visible and often explosive development practices, an because Tesla absolutely does play fast and loose with regulations, but for SpaceX it is not just entirely baseless, it's sort of the exact opposite of the truth. When FCC tells SpaceX to jump, SpaceX asks how high on the way up. Demisability standards were among the constraints of their license, so SpaceX made sure to not just meet the requirements, but well exceed them, which is what they always do. Why Musk likes to flout all rules at Tesla and yet follows rules strictly at SpaceX probably as a lot to do with how the regulators are generally pretty toothless about doing anything to Tesla, while either the FCC or the FAA could pretty much shut SpaceX down for as long as they like should SpaceX try to play cute with them. Enforcers with actual ability to enforce rules tend to be respected more.

shaklee3 6y ago
SpaceX absolutely does not follow fcc guidelines. There have been numerous occasions, including changing all their satellites to 550km altitude without getting proper approval where they do it and ask for forgiveness later.
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  > SpaceX absolutely does not follow fcc guidelines. There have been numerous occasions, including changing all their satellites to 550km altitude without getting proper approval where they do it and ask for forgiveness later. No. You have been misinformed, they have always asked for the authorization first. For the orbit modification to 550km, they asked on 2018-11-08, were granted permission on 2019-04-26, and started launching a month after that. [0][1] [0]: https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 https://fcc.report/IBFS/SAT-MOD-20181108-00083 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Launches
  - shaklee3 6y ago
    No, the point is you aren't allowed to do that. The initial filing for their satellites in the frequencies that they were requesting were for a certain altitudes. Without a brand new filing (not an amendment). They didn't do that.
    - Tuna-Fish 6y ago
      This is an argument that has been forwarded by Starlink competitors. FCC vehemently disagrees with it. I would rather go with FCC's interpretation on this, rather than competing commercial entities who have a vested interest in one outcome. If FCC didn't like the amendment, they could have just said no.
      - shaklee3 6y ago
        Everyone else had to play by the same rules until SpaceX doesn't. You say it's fair, but certainly if you were in that industry as a competitor it appears as favoritism. They also lie to push things through, like rate of decay, speeds offered, latency.