6 ms·

> The FCC cited among its reasons SpaceX's failure to successfully launch its Starship rocket, saying "the uncertain nature of Starship's future launches could

> The FCC cited among its reasons SpaceX's failure to successfully launch its Starship rocket, saying "the uncertain nature of Starship's future launches could impact Starlink's ability to meet" its obligations. The X beatings will continue until the tweeting improves.

echelon 3y ago
We need more competition [1] in orbital launch and orbital internet. Backing SpaceX alone when they have the lead will not lead to a good outcome. I'd imagine that there are also concerns about the close ties Musk has to the Russians and how he's tried to insert himself into the Ukrainian conflict on numerous occasions. [1] Not the largess of traditional government contractors Lockheed and Boeing, but the plethora of startups entering into this space.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  I don’t think moves like this, where the government acts in an adversarial capacity to successful businesses that it previously supported, will do a lot to attract new capital or technologists. If anything, I’d worry such capriciousness discourages investment in the area. If Musk can’t make it work, what odds do the rest of us face. At least that would be my concern, about how this is received by the wider tech community.
  - lolbase 3y ago
    It is beyond parody to refer to "not giving money that was not earned" as acting in an "adversarial capacity". Your argument is completely detached from reality, and devoid of logic.
    - 2devnull 3y ago
      My argument is that perceptions matter more than reality. Disagreeing on the grounds that my argument is not reality is not a dismissal, but I certainly understand that you do not perceive things as such. You are only one anecdote out of many.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
rohansingh 3y ago
OK, but that was far from the only reason. From the actual decision: > While Starlink faults the Bureau for relying on the most recent available data at the time of its decision to evaluate is existing network performance, Starlink does not explain what other data source the Bureau should have used in lieu of using the most recently available data. When the Bureau's decision was made, the most recent available evidence showed that "Starlink’s performance had been declining for download speed, upload speed, and jitter test performance." In other words, it was not only failing to meet the RDOF public interest obligations, but also trending further away from them. (edited to fix formatting)
- shdwbannd1234 3y ago
  Amazing the arguments people make up when the obvious is well documented -- just another hoax people -- just another russian psyop -- it's all just so laughable. The us government has collapsed and lost all legitimacy and I'll be called the 'conspiracy theorist' or somen other inane response (if its even given one, likely shouted down or removed by the Mods on whatever flimsy pretext). We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it, nor do the gears of justice turn without bias, lady justice isnt blind. But yeah, we can all pretend and lie and make up bullshit excuses that will change on whim. Again, we have so much extensive documentation and people keep pretending it doesnt exist. Perhaps like my comment, does it exist for you?
  - rideontime 3y ago
    Polite disagree.
  - alwa 3y ago
    I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What is obvious and well-documented here, from your perspective? And of what do we have extensive documentation? The regulatory data at the time the decision was taken, or something in Starlink’s defense? I didn’t find the article especially clear on this point, but it sounds like Starlink says that if the decision were taken today rather than in 2022, the performance data wouldn’t look so dire, and the FCC might have more faith in their promise to launch high-performance payloads with Starship during the grant’s required timeframe, is that what you mean?
moralestapia 3y ago
>the uncertain nature of Starship's future launches could impact Starlink's ability to meet" its obligations Lol, what is the FCC on? No one else comes even close to their launch record [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He....
- stephenr 3y ago
  You do understand that "Starship" is the literal name of a prototype space craft that is currently in development, but has not yet made a successful launch to orbit, rather than just a generic term, which may include the earlier, well-proven Falcon 9, right? SpaceX themselves have said that the future of their satellite internet business essentially depends on being able to put up a bigger model to replace the current ones, so much bigger that they can't feasibly use their existing, well-proven rockets to launch them.
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    Sure, but if you were to bet on a company to achieve that goal and it comes down to SpaceX vs. <literally who>?, it's not far fetched to go with the first.
    - stephenr 3y ago
      "Well it looks like no one else is going to achieve what you said you could do, and you got kinda close so fuck it, keep the money" doesn't really sound like how you should expect a government subsidy to be managed. For the record: I'm not commenting on whether the government was right or wrong to cancel the subsidy for SpaceX. I'm simply explaining why SpaceX's inability (so far) to get Starship to orbit is referenced, and more specifically, why the launch reliability of Falcon 9 is specifically not relevant in a sentence that says "Starship".
- zamadatix 3y ago
  I'm not necessarily happy with the outcome here but the FCC never compared their current generation vehicle launch record to anyone else's. They're saying SpaceX planned to launch 12,000-42,000 satellites within a certain timeline using new vehicles to keep up with demand but are currently at ~5,500 with Starship's start not going as smoothly as SpaceX planned for. Starship (or a Starship class vehicle) will get there eventually, almost certainly IMO, but the point here is it is uncertain if it'll get there in time to meet the obligations (part of which is timing) Starlink has made.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

echelon 3y ago

We need more competition [1] in orbital launch and orbital internet. Backing SpaceX alone when they have the lead will not lead to a good outcome. I'd imagine that there are also concerns about the close ties Musk has to the Russians and how he's tried to insert himself into the Ukrainian conflict on numerous occasions. [1] Not the largess of traditional government contractors Lockheed and Boeing, but the plethora of startups entering into this space.

2devnull 3y ago
I don’t think moves like this, where the government acts in an adversarial capacity to successful businesses that it previously supported, will do a lot to attract new capital or technologists. If anything, I’d worry such capriciousness discourages investment in the area. If Musk can’t make it work, what odds do the rest of us face. At least that would be my concern, about how this is received by the wider tech community.
- lolbase 3y ago
  It is beyond parody to refer to "not giving money that was not earned" as acting in an "adversarial capacity". Your argument is completely detached from reality, and devoid of logic.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    My argument is that perceptions matter more than reality. Disagreeing on the grounds that my argument is not reality is not a dismissal, but I certainly understand that you do not perceive things as such. You are only one anecdote out of many.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

rohansingh 3y ago

OK, but that was far from the only reason. From the actual decision: > While Starlink faults the Bureau for relying on the most recent available data at the time of its decision to evaluate is existing network performance, Starlink does not explain what other data source the Bureau should have used in lieu of using the most recently available data. When the Bureau's decision was made, the most recent available evidence showed that "Starlink’s performance had been declining for download speed, upload speed, and jitter test performance." In other words, it was not only failing to meet the RDOF public interest obligations, but also trending further away from them. (edited to fix formatting)

shdwbannd1234 3y ago
Amazing the arguments people make up when the obvious is well documented -- just another hoax people -- just another russian psyop -- it's all just so laughable. The us government has collapsed and lost all legitimacy and I'll be called the 'conspiracy theorist' or somen other inane response (if its even given one, likely shouted down or removed by the Mods on whatever flimsy pretext). We no longer live under the rule of law, there is no equality brfore it, nor do the gears of justice turn without bias, lady justice isnt blind. But yeah, we can all pretend and lie and make up bullshit excuses that will change on whim. Again, we have so much extensive documentation and people keep pretending it doesnt exist. Perhaps like my comment, does it exist for you?
- rideontime 3y ago
  Polite disagree.
- alwa 3y ago
  I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What is obvious and well-documented here, from your perspective? And of what do we have extensive documentation? The regulatory data at the time the decision was taken, or something in Starlink’s defense? I didn’t find the article especially clear on this point, but it sounds like Starlink says that if the decision were taken today rather than in 2022, the performance data wouldn’t look so dire, and the FCC might have more faith in their promise to launch high-performance payloads with Starship during the grant’s required timeframe, is that what you mean?

moralestapia 3y ago

>the uncertain nature of Starship's future launches could impact Starlink's ability to meet" its obligations Lol, what is the FCC on? No one else comes even close to their launch record [1]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_He....

stephenr 3y ago
You do understand that "Starship" is the literal name of a prototype space craft that is currently in development, but has not yet made a successful launch to orbit, rather than just a generic term, which may include the earlier, well-proven Falcon 9, right? SpaceX themselves have said that the future of their satellite internet business essentially depends on being able to put up a bigger model to replace the current ones, so much bigger that they can't feasibly use their existing, well-proven rockets to launch them.
- moralestapia 3y ago
  Sure, but if you were to bet on a company to achieve that goal and it comes down to SpaceX vs. <literally who>?, it's not far fetched to go with the first.
  - stephenr 3y ago
    "Well it looks like no one else is going to achieve what you said you could do, and you got kinda close so fuck it, keep the money" doesn't really sound like how you should expect a government subsidy to be managed. For the record: I'm not commenting on whether the government was right or wrong to cancel the subsidy for SpaceX. I'm simply explaining why SpaceX's inability (so far) to get Starship to orbit is referenced, and more specifically, why the launch reliability of Falcon 9 is specifically not relevant in a sentence that says "Starship".
zamadatix 3y ago
I'm not necessarily happy with the outcome here but the FCC never compared their current generation vehicle launch record to anyone else's. They're saying SpaceX planned to launch 12,000-42,000 satellites within a certain timeline using new vehicles to keep up with demand but are currently at ~5,500 with Starship's start not going as smoothly as SpaceX planned for. Starship (or a Starship class vehicle) will get there eventually, almost certainly IMO, but the point here is it is uncertain if it'll get there in time to meet the obligations (part of which is timing) Starlink has made.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]