4 ms·

Elon Musk's Starlink satellites 'blocking' view of the universe

24 points by microflash 2y ago

jeffwask 2y ago
Space billboards coming soon.
pipe01 2y ago
It's funny how it's always Elon's satellites and not SpaceX, they don't even bother hiding it now
- marcusverus 2y ago
  Right? SpaceX is presumably in compliance with the requirements set out by the relevant licensing body, otherwise their noncompliance would be the lede. So the actual boogieman here would appear to be the licensing body. Blaming a licensee for loose licensing requirements seems obviously ridiculous... but that's just the D in MDS, now isn't it?
  - adrian_b 2y ago
    Actually Starlink is not in compliance with the regulations. It exceeds a lot the permitted out-of-band emissions. Because of that, SpaceX has requested from FCC a waiver that would allow it to exceed nine times the out-of-band emissions permitted by the current regulations. The competitors of Starlink, i.e. AT&T, Verizon, EchoStar and Omnispace, have petitioned FCC to deny SpaceX's request. SpaceX argues that they should be allowed to break the rules because "This out-of-band emission restriction will be most detrimental for real-time communications such as voice and video, rendering such communications unreliable both in critical and in common circumstances, increasing risk in emergency situations" and complying with the rules risks "needlessly sacrificing reliable real-time communications, including emergency voice and video, for American consumers, limiting the most powerful supplemental coverage system in the world to just a text service". According to SpaceX, complying with the regulations requires that "To achieve this reduction, SpaceX would sacrifice substantial system capacity and capability, either turning down power by half and keeping all beams active, reducing its beam count by half, or a combination of the two". All these arguments look like a complete BS. SpaceX knew the regulations and they could have easily designed their equipment to be compliant, but this would have increased their costs, perhaps a lot, due to the need to include more expensive filters in their equipment, possibly increasing the size and weight, which would have also increased the launch costs. So they have attempted to save money by using the strategy "ask forgiveness not permission". I believe that any big company that uses this childish strategy should be severely punished, instead of receiving forgiveness. For small companies it is impossible to bring any product on the market without passing an expensive compliance test for radio emissions in a certified laboratory. When they are caught with a non-compliant product, they must recall it, they are not forgiven. SpaceX does not deserve any privileges, especially when their misbehavior affects the entire world, not only USA.
    - inemesitaffia 2y ago
      That may be true for Direct to Cell. But Japan thinks the OOB emissions are fine
- croes 2y ago
  Who owns SpaceX? Who is the CEO of SpaceX? Who as the majority voting control? No need to hide when the answer is always Musk.
truckerbill 2y ago
Poetic analogy for modern times , short term gain over cooperation inspiration and discovery. Also ironic coming from the company revitalising space tech. But cynically this benefits their business. We shouldn’t let powerful people hold us ransom in these ways
- marcusverus 2y ago
  > Poetic analogy for modern times , short term gain over cooperation inspiration and discovery. Satellite internet is a short term benefit? > But cynically this benefits their business. Hampering radio telescopes helps SpaceX? How? > We shouldn’t let powerful people hold us ransom in these ways. Who's being held ransom?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kadomony 2y ago
The manifestation of "in a rush to feel connected at all times, we're losing sight of what's right in front of us".

24 points by microflash 2y ago

jeffwask 2y ago

Space billboards coming soon.

pipe01 2y ago

It's funny how it's always Elon's satellites and not SpaceX, they don't even bother hiding it now

marcusverus 2y ago
Right? SpaceX is presumably in compliance with the requirements set out by the relevant licensing body, otherwise their noncompliance would be the lede. So the actual boogieman here would appear to be the licensing body. Blaming a licensee for loose licensing requirements seems obviously ridiculous... but that's just the D in MDS, now isn't it?
- adrian_b 2y ago
  Actually Starlink is not in compliance with the regulations. It exceeds a lot the permitted out-of-band emissions. Because of that, SpaceX has requested from FCC a waiver that would allow it to exceed nine times the out-of-band emissions permitted by the current regulations. The competitors of Starlink, i.e. AT&T, Verizon, EchoStar and Omnispace, have petitioned FCC to deny SpaceX's request. SpaceX argues that they should be allowed to break the rules because "This out-of-band emission restriction will be most detrimental for real-time communications such as voice and video, rendering such communications unreliable both in critical and in common circumstances, increasing risk in emergency situations" and complying with the rules risks "needlessly sacrificing reliable real-time communications, including emergency voice and video, for American consumers, limiting the most powerful supplemental coverage system in the world to just a text service". According to SpaceX, complying with the regulations requires that "To achieve this reduction, SpaceX would sacrifice substantial system capacity and capability, either turning down power by half and keeping all beams active, reducing its beam count by half, or a combination of the two". All these arguments look like a complete BS. SpaceX knew the regulations and they could have easily designed their equipment to be compliant, but this would have increased their costs, perhaps a lot, due to the need to include more expensive filters in their equipment, possibly increasing the size and weight, which would have also increased the launch costs. So they have attempted to save money by using the strategy "ask forgiveness not permission". I believe that any big company that uses this childish strategy should be severely punished, instead of receiving forgiveness. For small companies it is impossible to bring any product on the market without passing an expensive compliance test for radio emissions in a certified laboratory. When they are caught with a non-compliant product, they must recall it, they are not forgiven. SpaceX does not deserve any privileges, especially when their misbehavior affects the entire world, not only USA.
  - inemesitaffia 2y ago
    That may be true for Direct to Cell. But Japan thinks the OOB emissions are fine
croes 2y ago
Who owns SpaceX? Who is the CEO of SpaceX? Who as the majority voting control? No need to hide when the answer is always Musk.

truckerbill 2y ago

Poetic analogy for modern times , short term gain over cooperation inspiration and discovery. Also ironic coming from the company revitalising space tech. But cynically this benefits their business. We shouldn’t let powerful people hold us ransom in these ways

marcusverus 2y ago
> Poetic analogy for modern times , short term gain over cooperation inspiration and discovery. Satellite internet is a short term benefit? > But cynically this benefits their business. Hampering radio telescopes helps SpaceX? How? > We shouldn’t let powerful people hold us ransom in these ways. Who's being held ransom?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kadomony 2y ago

The manifestation of "in a rush to feel connected at all times, we're losing sight of what's right in front of us".