3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
        Tuna-Fish 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. No they didn't. When this was publicly said by a competitor when the challenge to the amendment was filed, and exasperated FCC official literally said publicly that anyone is, and has always been, able to do things the way that SpaceX is doing, and in fact FCC prefers it. The only reason most companies have not been doing it this way in the past is that SpaceX ends up paying a lot more in filing fees. The argument that SpaceX doing this is somehow favoritism is harebrained. What exactly is stopping the competitors from doing the same? Whether it's fair or not is also entirely beside the point. That was not what I was arguing at all. > They also lie to push things through, like rate of decay, speeds offered, latency. No, they don't. The rate of decay calculations in SpaceX filings have been based on the models FCC expects licensees to use. Yes, they do not perfectly model reality, but they are what FCC wants, and what everyone else uses too. As for speeds offered and latency, well, actual latency as realized in the beta seems well in line with what SpaceX has promised, and while they so far only offer a single speed grade to beta testers, they have demonstrated speeds in line with their original claims to the air force, and presumably will also offer those to customers (at a much higher price point) some point in the future. This is also entirely beside the point. To be frank, right now you sound like you have read too many dishonest SpaceX hitpieces, synthesized the idea that SpaceX is ran by cowboys who habitually ignore the rules, and are grasping at straws to support it, including quite a bit of moving the goalposts. I have made a single, factual claim: SpaceX meticulously follows the rulings given out by FCC and FAA. I spend quite a lot of time spelunking FCC filings looking for information about satellites, and I honestly believe it to be true. Can you point to a single actual counterexample? Not "competitor is angry about FCC ruling and claims FCC shouldn't have done something", but an actual FCC ruling or regulation on the books, that SpaceX proceeded to break. Because I do not know of a single example, and that is actually rare for a company in the industry. If you believe such an example to exist, please post it, preferably with a link to the actual ruling they are breaking.

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.
      - Tuna-Fish 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. No they didn't. When this was publicly said by a competitor when the challenge to the amendment was filed, and exasperated FCC official literally said publicly that anyone is, and has always been, able to do things the way that SpaceX is doing, and in fact FCC prefers it. The only reason most companies have not been doing it this way in the past is that SpaceX ends up paying a lot more in filing fees. The argument that SpaceX doing this is somehow favoritism is harebrained. What exactly is stopping the competitors from doing the same? Whether it's fair or not is also entirely beside the point. That was not what I was arguing at all. > They also lie to push things through, like rate of decay, speeds offered, latency. No, they don't. The rate of decay calculations in SpaceX filings have been based on the models FCC expects licensees to use. Yes, they do not perfectly model reality, but they are what FCC wants, and what everyone else uses too. As for speeds offered and latency, well, actual latency as realized in the beta seems well in line with what SpaceX has promised, and while they so far only offer a single speed grade to beta testers, they have demonstrated speeds in line with their original claims to the air force, and presumably will also offer those to customers (at a much higher price point) some point in the future. This is also entirely beside the point. To be frank, right now you sound like you have read too many dishonest SpaceX hitpieces, synthesized the idea that SpaceX is ran by cowboys who habitually ignore the rules, and are grasping at straws to support it, including quite a bit of moving the goalposts. I have made a single, factual claim: SpaceX meticulously follows the rulings given out by FCC and FAA. I spend quite a lot of time spelunking FCC filings looking for information about satellites, and I honestly believe it to be true. Can you point to a single actual counterexample? Not "competitor is angry about FCC ruling and claims FCC shouldn't have done something", but an actual FCC ruling or regulation on the books, that SpaceX proceeded to break. Because I do not know of a single example, and that is actually rare for a company in the industry. If you believe such an example to exist, please post it, preferably with a link to the actual ruling they are breaking.