4 ms·
>edit: my concern is the long chain of the curve of low-orbit satellite companies as price continues to have downward pressure. While this isn't entirely unrea
by xoa 6y ago
>edit: my concern is the long chain of the curve of low-orbit satellite companies as price continues to have downward pressure.
While this isn't entirely unreasonable, consider a few things. First, this is one case where even natural incentives line up pretty well. For the foreseeable future, no one is going to have more economic incentive to prevent the loss of usable LEO than companies that build themselves around usage of LEO. There are also virtuous spirals in the very technology that makes low cost possible, ie., the only way to reach SpaceX's targeted launch costs with Starship are to have a full reusability, and that itself cuts a ton of orbital debris (spent stages).
Second, much cheaper mass and higher cadence changes everything in space engineering, and that includes giving regulators significantly more leeway in what they can reasonably require. Things like more redundant controlled deorbit systems, requirements for lower orbits by default with higher orbits reserved, requirements for materials, and so on all ultimately boil down to how much it costs to get a kg to orbit and how regularly it can be done. More leeway there makes a lot of things easier without destroying utility, which in turn raises the chances we can make solid systematic changes.
Not saying there isn't plenty of room for error overall, or that regulators shouldn't be thinking about it too. But I do think the "mega constellation commercial" focus is mostly misguided. If anything the biggest risks seem to be from government actors, in terms of things like a-sat weapons and Old Space big companies not feeling the need to care.
- boringg 6y agoFull reusability makes sense and limits space junk - though the counter to that is they are launching more satellites into space - so probably negate each other to a certain point. I guess my concern would be who actually has regulatory authority over space and how can they ensure all actors play fairly. I would have to imagine this is a situation that is similar to the tragedy of the commons type scenario. To be clear - I really don't fall into one side of the camp or the other but I can see how a lot of the waste management side of things can fall by the wayside given our track record on waste cleanup (mines, municipal solid waste, nuclear)
- arrosenberg 6y ago> For the foreseeable future, no one is going to have more economic incentive to prevent the loss of usable LEO than companies that build themselves around usage of LEO. This line of reasoning never seems to work out the way you are suggesting. It's more likely to wind up in a giant Mexican standoff once there a multiple entities who all have the individual ability to ruin it for everyone.
- BurningFrog 6y agoWhich is when it's time to sit down and institute a system of property rights for what has now become a scarce resource.
- nordsieck 6y ago> and that itself cuts a ton of orbital debris (spent stages). Almost all upper stages for LEO missions get deorbited (or at least they're meant to be deorbited). It's typically only the high energy missions like GEO/GTO where upper stages get left in a "graveyard orbit".