5 ms·

The FAA and FCC are government bodies that have and exercise authority over SpaceX's design, implementation and operation of Starlink.

by jcims 4y ago

dylan604 4y ago
And have done nothing but rubber stamped everything they have requested regarding Starlink. No robust discussion of affects on others has been given serious thought other than "we'll paint them flat black" as a PR spin is not serious.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wumpus 4y ago
  I'm an astronomer who's been following the situation, and this comment of yours is entirely false. For example, there was only one satellite painted dark, and it didn't work well enough. The next mitigation after that worked well, but not well enough.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Sorry, you think I was making a comment in support of Starlink? What are you saying is false? Do you think that I believe Starlink's PR spin (what is confusing about those words?) to paint satellites black would fix the problem they created? Do you think that I belive the FAA/FCC have told SpaceX that they could no longer go ahead with their plans until a solution was in place? Where's the disconnect?
  - Teknoman117 4y ago
    As much as people may hate the prospect of putting that many satellites up, the service is so darn useful. What's the alternative? Force anyone who wants to participate in the modern world to live in a city or suburb along a fiber line? Neither public nor private groups have expressed much interest in actually getting internet connectivity to everyone. My parents live in a rural area in Northern California and only about 5 miles away from a fiber drop point. However, there are only about ten houses on their street and the local ISP and the big one that actually owns the fiber wants $10k USD a pole to bring a fiber line over to them (there's about 80 poles that would need work) plus connection and maintenance fees after that point. Needless to say, they're _loving_ their Starlink connection.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    - roflyear 4y ago
      Cities are greener, believe it or not.
      - karottenreibe 4y ago
        Source?
        roflyear 4y ago
        Lots of discussion around this if you look around, this is the first I found that wasn't a news publication: https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels... Logically, it makes sense: while you need to get a lot of things into the city, you can do that at scale in ways that are efficient (like trains, boats, etc..). Also, if you live in a city, you're probably taking up much less of a footprint. Individual houses are really inefficient. Nevermind driving everywhere! :)
      - Teknoman117 4y ago
        But they're not necessarily better - disease spreads much easier (as we are still having demonstrated to us), the noise is bad for your health, the air is bad for your health, the population is completely unsustainable when technology fails, at least in the US they tend to be smelly, dirty, etc. Until the masking and restaurant restrictions were lifted, there were next to no COVID cases in town and no one around us caught it. Meanwhile, my entire friend group (20+ people) in SF all caught it at some point. I'm the only one of the group that hasn't had it.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      I would be interested in seeing actual numbers of people that are positvely benefitting from Starlink in the manner you are describing. Remote locations in Africa numbers just don't seem like a very high number of actual users. I will be most pleasantly surprised if that's where large numbers of users are found. However, I'm guessing users are mainly all techno nerds looking to escape evilCoMonopolyISP. A segment will probably be US based far reaches remote type users. After that, it's a whole lot of stuff in space to benefit a very small number just so other people can point at potential uses
- Terry_Roll 4y ago
  Perhaps the Starlink team didnt use Vantablack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack) to hide their existence? Maybe Surrey NanoSystems could help out or there again maybe scientists would end up spotting numerous black holes much like they thought they had discovered something more interesting than an impatient scientist! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peryton_(astronomy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peryton_(astronomy) This is still consigned to coverup/conspiracy theory but these Ionosphere Heaters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater) have the ability to heat up the Ionosphere creating something akin to the bulge on a balloon or car tyre wall where the upper atmosphere pushes out into space. This has two effects, it push's atmosphere into the low earth orbiting satellites path aking to driving through a sudden bank of fog, only this bulge of atmosphere can bring LEOB satellites down as they are not designed to go through atmosphere. It also affects the Jet Stream winds in the upper atmosphere circulating the planet which in turn affects the weather of continents, its less predictable but its an alternative to the very localised and resource hungry cloud seeding. The BBC Horizon program did a episode on "Space Weather" and in the last 5mins of the episode they focused on the EISCAT heater near Tromsø in Norway. In the episode the operator/scientist explained what it does to the upper atmosphere, which is explained above. Obviously this also has military applications because any LEOB satellite can be bought down if these IH's are on a ship somewhere in the middle of an ocean away from prying eyes!
  - wumpus 4y ago
    > there again maybe scientists would end up spotting numerous black holes I work on radio astronomy and black holes, and no, that wouldn't happen. I mean, you probably think it's a good joke, and it may be for the general public. But it doesn't make any sense to an astronomer at any wavelength. There have been a few "stealth satellites" launched, and it's an interesting problem to detect them without spending a ton of money.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      The fact that they called out Vantablack didn't strike you as being tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek? You really sound like someone is grabbing a raw nerve with you and unable to see we're on your side poking fun.
- mlindner 4y ago
  They rubber stamped them because there aren't any real problems... And they did try painting them black, not a PR spin, and it didn't work out so now they're equipped with sunshades and that does work, with independent scientific studies showing it to boot. You guys read way too much propaganda. Please do a modicum of research first rather than jumping to outrage. It's getting unendingly frustrating.
Retric 4y ago
Many governments are currently regulating Starlink operations in their countries. The while the FAA and NASA have an outsized role, the US alone isn’t enough to make Starlink commercially viable. You personally may not benefit, but LEO internet constellations really do solve a major issue for many people.
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  America is unconcerned with the opinions of other countries (I don't blame them the reality is that might makes right) and I really don't see what the rest of the world can do to stop Starlink launches that wouldn't involve WW3. But I'm sure that if it all goes tits up the US will fix it all and humbly apologize.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Starlink satellites are dependent on Hall-effect thrusters to maintain orbit, so the constellation will quickly burn up if Star link fails.
  - wumpus 4y ago
    There's a treaty that everyone signed, and it says Starlink launches are fine as long as the country they launch from says OK. China can OK Chinese launches. Satellites aren't supposed to interfere with each other, but that's not strictly defined. You aren't supposed to create debris, but the standard for that isn't strict at all. There's a good discussion going on about extending that treaty: stricter rules on deorbiting failed satellites and stages, light pollution, excessive numbers of satellites in narrow orbital bands, and so on.
- dylan604 4y ago
  It's not the ground based operations that get me, it's those on the ground looking up seeing nothing but Starlink
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s straightforward to kill Starlink, just solve the “last mile” internet access problem and they fail. The idea we could setup mail service to everyone then wire up electricity and finally landlines to effectively every home in a vastly poor societies but can’t solve the internet issue without satellites is disgraceful.
wumpus 4y ago
Don't forget the ITU, that's where the regulation starts.

The FAA and FCC are government bodies that have and exercise authority over SpaceX's design, implementation and operation of Starlink.

by jcims 4y ago

The FAA and FCC are government bodies that have and exercise authority over SpaceX's design, implementation and operation of Starlink.

dylan604 4y ago

And have done nothing but rubber stamped everything they have requested regarding Starlink. No robust discussion of affects on others has been given serious thought other than "we'll paint them flat black" as a PR spin is not serious.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wumpus 4y ago
I'm an astronomer who's been following the situation, and this comment of yours is entirely false. For example, there was only one satellite painted dark, and it didn't work well enough. The next mitigation after that worked well, but not well enough.
- dylan604 4y ago
  Sorry, you think I was making a comment in support of Starlink? What are you saying is false? Do you think that I believe Starlink's PR spin (what is confusing about those words?) to paint satellites black would fix the problem they created? Do you think that I belive the FAA/FCC have told SpaceX that they could no longer go ahead with their plans until a solution was in place? Where's the disconnect?
- Teknoman117 4y ago
  As much as people may hate the prospect of putting that many satellites up, the service is so darn useful. What's the alternative? Force anyone who wants to participate in the modern world to live in a city or suburb along a fiber line? Neither public nor private groups have expressed much interest in actually getting internet connectivity to everyone. My parents live in a rural area in Northern California and only about 5 miles away from a fiber drop point. However, there are only about ten houses on their street and the local ISP and the big one that actually owns the fiber wants $10k USD a pole to bring a fiber line over to them (there's about 80 poles that would need work) plus connection and maintenance fees after that point. Needless to say, they're _loving_ their Starlink connection.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
  - roflyear 4y ago
    Cities are greener, believe it or not.
    - karottenreibe 4y ago
      Source?
      - roflyear 4y ago
        Lots of discussion around this if you look around, this is the first I found that wasn't a news publication: https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/ https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels... Logically, it makes sense: while you need to get a lot of things into the city, you can do that at scale in ways that are efficient (like trains, boats, etc..). Also, if you live in a city, you're probably taking up much less of a footprint. Individual houses are really inefficient. Nevermind driving everywhere! :)
    - Teknoman117 4y ago
      But they're not necessarily better - disease spreads much easier (as we are still having demonstrated to us), the noise is bad for your health, the air is bad for your health, the population is completely unsustainable when technology fails, at least in the US they tend to be smelly, dirty, etc. Until the masking and restaurant restrictions were lifted, there were next to no COVID cases in town and no one around us caught it. Meanwhile, my entire friend group (20+ people) in SF all caught it at some point. I'm the only one of the group that hasn't had it.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    I would be interested in seeing actual numbers of people that are positvely benefitting from Starlink in the manner you are describing. Remote locations in Africa numbers just don't seem like a very high number of actual users. I will be most pleasantly surprised if that's where large numbers of users are found. However, I'm guessing users are mainly all techno nerds looking to escape evilCoMonopolyISP. A segment will probably be US based far reaches remote type users. After that, it's a whole lot of stuff in space to benefit a very small number just so other people can point at potential uses
Terry_Roll 4y ago
Perhaps the Starlink team didnt use Vantablack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vantablack) to hide their existence? Maybe Surrey NanoSystems could help out or there again maybe scientists would end up spotting numerous black holes much like they thought they had discovered something more interesting than an impatient scientist! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peryton_(astronomy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peryton_(astronomy) This is still consigned to coverup/conspiracy theory but these Ionosphere Heaters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionospheric_heater) have the ability to heat up the Ionosphere creating something akin to the bulge on a balloon or car tyre wall where the upper atmosphere pushes out into space. This has two effects, it push's atmosphere into the low earth orbiting satellites path aking to driving through a sudden bank of fog, only this bulge of atmosphere can bring LEOB satellites down as they are not designed to go through atmosphere. It also affects the Jet Stream winds in the upper atmosphere circulating the planet which in turn affects the weather of continents, its less predictable but its an alternative to the very localised and resource hungry cloud seeding. The BBC Horizon program did a episode on "Space Weather" and in the last 5mins of the episode they focused on the EISCAT heater near Tromsø in Norway. In the episode the operator/scientist explained what it does to the upper atmosphere, which is explained above. Obviously this also has military applications because any LEOB satellite can be bought down if these IH's are on a ship somewhere in the middle of an ocean away from prying eyes!
- wumpus 4y ago
  > there again maybe scientists would end up spotting numerous black holes I work on radio astronomy and black holes, and no, that wouldn't happen. I mean, you probably think it's a good joke, and it may be for the general public. But it doesn't make any sense to an astronomer at any wavelength. There have been a few "stealth satellites" launched, and it's an interesting problem to detect them without spending a ton of money.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    The fact that they called out Vantablack didn't strike you as being tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek? You really sound like someone is grabbing a raw nerve with you and unable to see we're on your side poking fun.
mlindner 4y ago
They rubber stamped them because there aren't any real problems... And they did try painting them black, not a PR spin, and it didn't work out so now they're equipped with sunshades and that does work, with independent scientific studies showing it to boot. You guys read way too much propaganda. Please do a modicum of research first rather than jumping to outrage. It's getting unendingly frustrating.

Retric 4y ago

Many governments are currently regulating Starlink operations in their countries. The while the FAA and NASA have an outsized role, the US alone isn’t enough to make Starlink commercially viable. You personally may not benefit, but LEO internet constellations really do solve a major issue for many people.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago
America is unconcerned with the opinions of other countries (I don't blame them the reality is that might makes right) and I really don't see what the rest of the world can do to stop Starlink launches that wouldn't involve WW3. But I'm sure that if it all goes tits up the US will fix it all and humbly apologize.
- Retric 4y ago
  Starlink satellites are dependent on Hall-effect thrusters to maintain orbit, so the constellation will quickly burn up if Star link fails.
- wumpus 4y ago
  There's a treaty that everyone signed, and it says Starlink launches are fine as long as the country they launch from says OK. China can OK Chinese launches. Satellites aren't supposed to interfere with each other, but that's not strictly defined. You aren't supposed to create debris, but the standard for that isn't strict at all. There's a good discussion going on about extending that treaty: stricter rules on deorbiting failed satellites and stages, light pollution, excessive numbers of satellites in narrow orbital bands, and so on.
dylan604 4y ago
It's not the ground based operations that get me, it's those on the ground looking up seeing nothing but Starlink
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s straightforward to kill Starlink, just solve the “last mile” internet access problem and they fail. The idea we could setup mail service to everyone then wire up electricity and finally landlines to effectively every home in a vastly poor societies but can’t solve the internet issue without satellites is disgraceful.

wumpus 4y ago

Don't forget the ITU, that's where the regulation starts.