4 ms·
You make it sound as if the rocket science here is more critical than the chip science, or whatever. But it isn't really proven true. AST also seems to be favo
by AshamedCaptain 3y ago
You make it sound as if the rocket science here is more critical than the chip science, or whatever. But it isn't really proven true.
AST also seems to be favoring a different strategy, having a smaller number of satellites each capable of serving a larger number of users vs Starlink's thousands of satellites serving a couple of users each. IMHO AST's approach sounds more sensible and manageable (albeit both approaches manage to equally annoy astronomers). Whether they will be able to really serve a large enough number of users or not also depends on the chip science (rather than the rocket one).
- zachmu 3y agoEven if Starlink's approach isn't a proven advantage yet, a competitor's ability to deploy new tech at will, at cost, when you are at their mercy to do so on their schedule and at their price, is not a great signal
- ensignavenger 3y agoHow dependent are they on SpaceX, really though? There are competitors that are capable of launching satellites into LEO, some them are getting closer to SpaceX pricing. There may be some design hurdles to make everything work, but I don't think SpaceX could really completely block them.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- inemesitaffia 3y agoSpaceX won't block them. No one is getting to SpaceX pricing to LEO
- HeadsUpHigh 3y agoNobody is getting at spacex pricing any time soon. New Glenn is the only comparable vehicle and as far as we can tell it's not going to be launching in the forseeable future.
- SeanAnderson 3y agoThis is a fair point. AST SpaceMobile is shipping drastically more complicated satellite tech than Starlink and that could prove to be a competitive advantage. I'm not sure I agree with the strategy, though. It seems really challenging and dangerous to put such huge satellites into LEO. They'll require constant maneuvering. NASA seems to think it'll require 4 maneuvers per day, https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/49981/why-do-ast-spacemobile-satellites-have-antennas-much-larger-than-starlink-where https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/49981/why-do-ast-s... I will put my money on cheaper, more disposable satellites because they enable rapid iteration cycles with less risk.
- AshamedCaptain 3y ago4 maneuvers per day for the _entire_ planned network versus the 70+ maneuvers per day that starlink is doing right now with their network that is not yet at capacity. It does not matter how you cut it, AST's plan is _at least_ two orders of magnitude more manageable. They simply need it to survive.
- SeanAnderson 3y agoFrom the StackExchange link: So big in fact that a couple of months ago the US space agency NASA, having looked at SpaceMobile's plans, complained the "extremely large satellites when in orbit will engender an unacceptably high risk of a catastrophic debris-producing collision." I don't know enough about this area to really comment, and they did reach an agreement with NASA the next year, but it still seems like there's something to be said about the size of the object being maneuvered. You're right though that SpaceX has to deal with a lot more. I guess I just figured that in failure scenarios they'd deorbit a satellite, and shrug it off, where as AST SpaceMobile can't tolerate losses.