16 ms·

I disdain the owners of both but Bezos (fairly) seems to get a bit more ire here. The Verge’s piece elaborated that SpaceX hasn’t decided between two configurat

I disdain the owners of both but Bezos (fairly) seems to get a bit more ire here. The Verge’s piece elaborated that SpaceX hasn’t decided between two configurations and want approval for both even though they will only choose one, so everyone else has to plan around two different configurations. I’m not sure if that’s standard procedure but it does seem a bit unfair to add double work for everyone else.

bpodgursky 5y ago
It's a bit of a stretch to say they haven't decided; one depends on Starship being approved for launch (and working) in the right timeframe, and the other just uses Falcon 9s. I don't think regulators should force companies to be conservative in unrelated technical development when it doesn't have any material impact on others.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ajford 5y ago
  But it does have material impact on others. The Starlink constellations in this proposal are large, and any future development by others will have to account for the orbits of these potential constellations. That's 30k new objects to plan for, and with two configurations at play, that means accounting for essentially 60k objects in motion, effectively doubling the work someone would have to do to plan their deployments.
  - marricks 5y ago
    And the Falcon rockets are already approved and working now right? So they have a viable way to launch them anyways, it's not like their hands are tied.
  - Seanambers 5y ago
    If there is limited space, why shouldn't it be first come first serve? Anyways, it is my impression that space is kinda big..
    - MauranKilom 5y ago
      Space is, but low earth orbit isn't. At least not when you want to fill it with millions of circles (not points!) that must keep certain distances from another.
      - caconym_ 5y ago
        > fill it with millions of circles (not points!) that must keep certain distances from another. This is, at best, misleading. The objects that have to keep clear of each other are (effectively) points, and they can share orbits with different phasing. The most obvious real-world example of multiple objects sharing an orbit is geostationary orbit.
        Beldin 5y ago
        According to Wikipedia [1], LEO is up to 2000km, though e.g. the ISS is at about 400km; geostationary orbit is 35,768 km. Minimum difference in orbital length is 2 pi times 33,768km. So the obvious case for geostationary orbits is significantly better than for LEO. Nevertheless, LEO isn't bad. A height of 400 km translates into a circle of about 42,655 km (orbital length of ISS according to NASA). That is enough to park several satellites in without them being parked bumper to bumper. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
    - kingofclams 5y ago
      First come first serve becomes a lot less beneficial when you start trying to get things off the planet, or see things with this many obstructions.
    - alasdair_ 5y ago
      > If there is limited space, why shouldn't it be first come first serve? Because it encourages squatting and low-value rent seeking from the first people to get there.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    It's like, well, land — if somebody builds on it, nobody else would be able to. They'd need to build nearby, or elsewhere. It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits.
    - ajford 5y ago
      Buildings on land don't move. You don't have to plan for the scenario where your neighbor's house shifts it's location a few degrees and runs into your house, or where your neighbor's house will be in 2 years. These constellations aren't stationary, they move based on their orbital parameters, and to properly predict their orbits, you'll have to account for their future movement for the next while (depending on expected lifetime and how close they come to your intended orbit). Saying this is like buying a plot of land is missing the level of work and complexity that goes into orbital mechanics. If you need to illuminate the same area of the earth, which would make sense if you're also looking to serve the same populations, then you'll need to either be at a different altitude or have neighboring or intersecting orbits, which will need to handle the orbits of all other objects. That's why the level of complexity increases a fair bit when you need to plan for two large-scale configurations.
    - onion2k 5y ago
      It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits. No, but it is worth noting that there are about 7000 satellites in orbit right now, of which a little over half are actually operational[1]. Starlink intends to increase that number 10 fold by launching 30,000 of their own. It will have a significant impact on which orbits are available, it will cause extra work for everyone who operates in space, and (in my opinion) the benefit of "broadband internet everywhere on Earth" isn't so big that people shouldn't think about whether it's worth it. Especially given the fact there are other competitors in the market who'll be wanting to launch their own constellations too. We could end up with many tens of thousands of internet provider satellites, and the market probably isn't big enough for more than a couple of companies providing that service. At the very least there should be rules demanding that each company makes their satellites interoperable with all their competitors, so if one company withdraws from the market someone else can take over their orbiting hardware so we're not left with immense amounts of space junk. [1] https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/how-many-satellites-are-orbiting-the-earth-in-2021/ https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/how-many-satellites-ar...
  - elif 5y ago
    it's not doubling "someone's" work. it's avoidance software doing avoidance software. and starlink is in low LEO
  - cryptonector 5y ago
    That's not what Bezos is complaining about though.
z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual progress. Bezos is literally the greedy avatar of Edison in this race, who's only advances are only made through parasitic monopolies, tyranny, and his own ego. He literally walked out in a cowboy hat to tell the world "thank you for your money peasants!"
- marricks 5y ago
  I'm sorry but better energy storage and electric cars for the middle class isn't going save us. It's not progress, it's a distraction along the way to ecological collapse.
  - Beldin 5y ago
    If electric cars are part is the solution, we need demand for infrastructure (mostly charging, but also maintenance expertise). Middle class-driven Teslas are sufficiently present to have induced building infrastructure, from which other classes can profit. If electric transportation is not part of the solution, you're right about that being a distraction.
  - bperson 5y ago
    Maybe. It's always possible that as a civilization we are saddled with too many never-going-to-progress-until-we-stop-doing-x technologies. Maybe it's not a distraction, but using a market to develop a capability that will save billions.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    You're quite right. I'm very hopeful that this will get trough to people. Someday.
  - z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
    You're right it's going to be the industrial level where we're actually going to feel the effects, so i think I will still go with the person who's making a giant electric gigafactory to make electric cars not polluting entirely everything.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
> so everyone else has to plan around two different configurations. Which just requires choosing a different shell (altitude). It takes me more effort to write this post. It's more work during launch and orbit raise, but at that point you don't have to worry about hypothetical or future satellites, only the existing ones. Space is big, it's easy to avoid millions of satellites, as long as they're actively powered and you know where they are.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bpodgursky 5y ago

It's a bit of a stretch to say they haven't decided; one depends on Starship being approved for launch (and working) in the right timeframe, and the other just uses Falcon 9s. I don't think regulators should force companies to be conservative in unrelated technical development when it doesn't have any material impact on others.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ajford 5y ago
But it does have material impact on others. The Starlink constellations in this proposal are large, and any future development by others will have to account for the orbits of these potential constellations. That's 30k new objects to plan for, and with two configurations at play, that means accounting for essentially 60k objects in motion, effectively doubling the work someone would have to do to plan their deployments.
- marricks 5y ago
  And the Falcon rockets are already approved and working now right? So they have a viable way to launch them anyways, it's not like their hands are tied.
- Seanambers 5y ago
  If there is limited space, why shouldn't it be first come first serve? Anyways, it is my impression that space is kinda big..
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    Space is, but low earth orbit isn't. At least not when you want to fill it with millions of circles (not points!) that must keep certain distances from another.
    - caconym_ 5y ago
      > fill it with millions of circles (not points!) that must keep certain distances from another. This is, at best, misleading. The objects that have to keep clear of each other are (effectively) points, and they can share orbits with different phasing. The most obvious real-world example of multiple objects sharing an orbit is geostationary orbit.
      - Beldin 5y ago
        According to Wikipedia [1], LEO is up to 2000km, though e.g. the ISS is at about 400km; geostationary orbit is 35,768 km. Minimum difference in orbital length is 2 pi times 33,768km. So the obvious case for geostationary orbits is significantly better than for LEO. Nevertheless, LEO isn't bad. A height of 400 km translates into a circle of about 42,655 km (orbital length of ISS according to NASA). That is enough to park several satellites in without them being parked bumper to bumper. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits
  - kingofclams 5y ago
    First come first serve becomes a lot less beneficial when you start trying to get things off the planet, or see things with this many obstructions.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    > If there is limited space, why shouldn't it be first come first serve? Because it encourages squatting and low-value rent seeking from the first people to get there.
- nine_k 5y ago
  It's like, well, land — if somebody builds on it, nobody else would be able to. They'd need to build nearby, or elsewhere. It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits.
  - ajford 5y ago
    Buildings on land don't move. You don't have to plan for the scenario where your neighbor's house shifts it's location a few degrees and runs into your house, or where your neighbor's house will be in 2 years. These constellations aren't stationary, they move based on their orbital parameters, and to properly predict their orbits, you'll have to account for their future movement for the next while (depending on expected lifetime and how close they come to your intended orbit). Saying this is like buying a plot of land is missing the level of work and complexity that goes into orbital mechanics. If you need to illuminate the same area of the earth, which would make sense if you're also looking to serve the same populations, then you'll need to either be at a different altitude or have neighboring or intersecting orbits, which will need to handle the orbits of all other objects. That's why the level of complexity increases a fair bit when you need to plan for two large-scale configurations.
  - onion2k 5y ago
    It's not like Starlink is,going to exhaust all viable orbits. No, but it is worth noting that there are about 7000 satellites in orbit right now, of which a little over half are actually operational[1]. Starlink intends to increase that number 10 fold by launching 30,000 of their own. It will have a significant impact on which orbits are available, it will cause extra work for everyone who operates in space, and (in my opinion) the benefit of "broadband internet everywhere on Earth" isn't so big that people shouldn't think about whether it's worth it. Especially given the fact there are other competitors in the market who'll be wanting to launch their own constellations too. We could end up with many tens of thousands of internet provider satellites, and the market probably isn't big enough for more than a couple of companies providing that service. At the very least there should be rules demanding that each company makes their satellites interoperable with all their competitors, so if one company withdraws from the market someone else can take over their orbiting hardware so we're not left with immense amounts of space junk. [1] https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/how-many-satellites-are-orbiting-the-earth-in-2021/ https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/how-many-satellites-ar...
- elif 5y ago
  it's not doubling "someone's" work. it's avoidance software doing avoidance software. and starlink is in low LEO
- cryptonector 5y ago
  That's not what Bezos is complaining about though.

z3ncyberpunk 5y ago

I'll take the eccentric billionaire actually tackling real issues and making actual headway. People here are too narrow minded and have quarter to quarter short term memory disorder, seeming to forget that Musk and Tesla are the sole reason we have had the progress and momentum towards actually greener technologies, not simply greenwashed corporate nonsense that was churned out year after year without any was actual progress. Bezos is literally the greedy avatar of Edison in this race, who's only advances are only made through parasitic monopolies, tyranny, and his own ego. He literally walked out in a cowboy hat to tell the world "thank you for your money peasants!"

marricks 5y ago
I'm sorry but better energy storage and electric cars for the middle class isn't going save us. It's not progress, it's a distraction along the way to ecological collapse.
- Beldin 5y ago
  If electric cars are part is the solution, we need demand for infrastructure (mostly charging, but also maintenance expertise). Middle class-driven Teslas are sufficiently present to have induced building infrastructure, from which other classes can profit. If electric transportation is not part of the solution, you're right about that being a distraction.
- bperson 5y ago
  Maybe. It's always possible that as a civilization we are saddled with too many never-going-to-progress-until-we-stop-doing-x technologies. Maybe it's not a distraction, but using a market to develop a capability that will save billions.
- esarbe 5y ago
  You're quite right. I'm very hopeful that this will get trough to people. Someday.
- z3ncyberpunk 5y ago
  You're right it's going to be the industrial level where we're actually going to feel the effects, so i think I will still go with the person who's making a giant electric gigafactory to make electric cars not polluting entirely everything.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

> so everyone else has to plan around two different configurations. Which just requires choosing a different shell (altitude). It takes me more effort to write this post. It's more work during launch and orbit raise, but at that point you don't have to worry about hypothetical or future satellites, only the existing ones. Space is big, it's easy to avoid millions of satellites, as long as they're actively powered and you know where they are.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]