3 ms·

This is a fair point. AST SpaceMobile is shipping drastically more complicated satellite tech than Starlink and that could prove to be a competitive advantage.

This 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 ago
4 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 ago
  From 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.