5 ms·
I_Am_Nous wrote: "Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't ha
by hnburnsy 3y ago
I_Am_Nous wrote:
"Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds. As of yet Starship hasn't had a successful launch."
From one of the dissenting opinions:
> the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX’s Starship launch platform—the largest, most powerful rocket ever built—as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-105A3.pdf
- Deprecate9151 3y agoThe Commission decision does address this. Unfortunately the section is redacted of specific details, but it appears Starlink argued that it's second gen satellites would be launched via Starship and address these issues. However, they didn't successfully launch Starship yet as they described in that plan, and only announced Falcon 9 would launch second gen satellites after they were already denied based off of the initial plan. The dissenting letter unfortunately just says "no they didn't", but doesn't point to any documentary evidence. It's hard to accept it at face value when compared to the long form explanation. Especially when much of the "corrective action" taken by Starlink has come after the initial denial.
- trothamel 3y agoGiven how much of the decision is blacked out, it's hard to give it any credibility, either.
- nozzlegear 3y agoPresumably the people who are relevant to the decision making are able to read the full reasoning and give it its due credibility.
- mardifoufs 3y agoLike the dissenting opinion did?