4 ms·

Do Viasat's launches go through the same type of environmental impact study they're saying SpaceX should go through? I couldn't tell from the article whether t

Do Viasat's launches go through the same type of environmental impact study they're saying SpaceX should go through? I couldn't tell from the article whether the FCC let SpaceX skip a step (legitimately or not), or whether Viasat is arguing for a new regulation to be applied to SpaceX that doesn't currently exist.

evanb 5y ago
Satellites in geosync are very VERY far away; much farther than Starlink's LEOs. So the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced; the risk of altering the appearance of the night sky is similarly reduced by the distance.
- kitsunesoba 5y ago
  On the other hand, geosynchronous satellites won’t ever clean themselves up and if control is lost on one, it’ll continue to be a problem for thousands of years or until a retrieval craft is sent up. There’s not even really much of an opportunity to safely de-orbit if failure is anticipated because they’re so far out. With Starlink, in the worst case scenario dead satellites will be in orbit for 2-3 years, and if signs of giving out start showing up SpaceX can quickly and safely steer it to burn up, with a cheap (and likely updated) replacement being sent up within a month.
  - nradov 5y ago
    If a geostationary satellite is still operational when it reaches end of life then the operators are supposed to use the remaining fuel to move it to a safe graveyard orbit. Of course that doesn't always work.
- gpm 5y ago
  > the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced This isn't really a risk, it's a feature. "Crashing" into the atmosphere means you slow down from orbital velocity and re-enter instead of polluting the orbital environment. It's much worse if you stay in orbit, occupying valuable space, and risking collisions that will create debris clouds occupying much more valuable space (and potentially resulting in chain reactions). SpaceX has long since designed it's satellites to fully burn up as they re-enter the atmosphere to remove the risk that they'll hit someone on the ground, but even for satellites where that hasn't happened, it's generally preferred that they re-enter the atmosphere than hang out dead in valuable orbits.
  - wumpus 5y ago
    It's a risk, and the FCC requires that you plan on not killing people on the ground if your satellites are going to re-enter.
    - gpm 5y ago
      Crashing into the ground is a risk, crashing into the atmosphere not so much.
    - bpodgursky 5y ago
      The Starlink satellites are tiny; they burn up in the upper atmosphere and never reach the ground.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      And the FAA required that you plan on not killing people on the ground when your plane lands. He said it's not a risk in the sence that it's not something you avoid, it's something you use regularly. He did not mean "you can just YOLO it"
    - mlindner 5y ago
      That's the FAA requiring that, not FCC.
monocasa 5y ago
I think their point is that thousands of satellites in LEO is different than a half dozen in geo synchronous orbit. You can see starlink satellites from the ground as they orbit, and there's much greater chance of collisions with how their orbits work. I think Viasat is mainly hoping to stall SpaceX as they see their business crumbling around them rapidly, but there's some fair questions.
- panzagl 5y ago
  I did some digging, and apparently all launches have been exempt, including Viasats https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/viasat-presses-fcc-to-review-environmental-impact-of-starlinks-satellites/d/d-id/766444 https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/viasat-presses-fcc-to... So they are looking for new regulation, based on some rather spurious claims.
wumpus 5y ago
No satellite has ever had to do an environmental impact study -- the FCC/FAA has a blanket waiver for everyone. The FCC does regulate debris and re-entry hazards. Constellations like SpaceX's have much more strict rules than GEO satellites like Viasat's.

evanb 5y ago

Satellites in geosync are very VERY far away; much farther than Starlink's LEOs. So the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced; the risk of altering the appearance of the night sky is similarly reduced by the distance.

kitsunesoba 5y ago
On the other hand, geosynchronous satellites won’t ever clean themselves up and if control is lost on one, it’ll continue to be a problem for thousands of years or until a retrieval craft is sent up. There’s not even really much of an opportunity to safely de-orbit if failure is anticipated because they’re so far out. With Starlink, in the worst case scenario dead satellites will be in orbit for 2-3 years, and if signs of giving out start showing up SpaceX can quickly and safely steer it to burn up, with a cheap (and likely updated) replacement being sent up within a month.
- nradov 5y ago
  If a geostationary satellite is still operational when it reaches end of life then the operators are supposed to use the remaining fuel to move it to a safe graveyard orbit. Of course that doesn't always work.
gpm 5y ago
> the risk of crashing into the atmosphere is much reduced This isn't really a risk, it's a feature. "Crashing" into the atmosphere means you slow down from orbital velocity and re-enter instead of polluting the orbital environment. It's much worse if you stay in orbit, occupying valuable space, and risking collisions that will create debris clouds occupying much more valuable space (and potentially resulting in chain reactions). SpaceX has long since designed it's satellites to fully burn up as they re-enter the atmosphere to remove the risk that they'll hit someone on the ground, but even for satellites where that hasn't happened, it's generally preferred that they re-enter the atmosphere than hang out dead in valuable orbits.
- wumpus 5y ago
  It's a risk, and the FCC requires that you plan on not killing people on the ground if your satellites are going to re-enter.
  - gpm 5y ago
    Crashing into the ground is a risk, crashing into the atmosphere not so much.
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    The Starlink satellites are tiny; they burn up in the upper atmosphere and never reach the ground.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    And the FAA required that you plan on not killing people on the ground when your plane lands. He said it's not a risk in the sence that it's not something you avoid, it's something you use regularly. He did not mean "you can just YOLO it"
  - mlindner 5y ago
    That's the FAA requiring that, not FCC.

monocasa 5y ago

I think their point is that thousands of satellites in LEO is different than a half dozen in geo synchronous orbit. You can see starlink satellites from the ground as they orbit, and there's much greater chance of collisions with how their orbits work. I think Viasat is mainly hoping to stall SpaceX as they see their business crumbling around them rapidly, but there's some fair questions.

panzagl 5y ago
I did some digging, and apparently all launches have been exempt, including Viasats https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/viasat-presses-fcc-to-review-environmental-impact-of-starlinks-satellites/d/d-id/766444 https://www.lightreading.com/opticalip/viasat-presses-fcc-to... So they are looking for new regulation, based on some rather spurious claims.

wumpus 5y ago

No satellite has ever had to do an environmental impact study -- the FCC/FAA has a blanket waiver for everyone. The FCC does regulate debris and re-entry hazards. Constellations like SpaceX's have much more strict rules than GEO satellites like Viasat's.