Keep your thousands of space crap out of lethal range please.
FCC Denies Starlink Low-Orbit Bid for Lower Latency
Submitted 8 months ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to technology@lemmy.world
https://spectrum.ieee.org/starlink-vleo-below-iss
Comments
this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 8 months ago
QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 8 months ago
out of lethal range
Would they not be?
Kbobabob@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Please try reading the article before commenting. This is the very first paragraph.
The FCC has once again rejected a Starlink plan to deploy thousands of internet satellites in very low earth orbits (VLEO) ranging from 340 to 360 kilometers. In an order published last week, the FCC wrote: “SpaceX may not deploy any satellites designed for operational altitudes below the International Space Station,” whose orbit can range as low as 370 kilometers.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 months ago
“The FCC has once again rejected a Starlink plan to deploy thousands of internet satellites in very low earth orbits (VLEO) ranging from 340 to 360 kilometers. In an order published last week, the FCC wrote: “SpaceX may not deploy any satellites designed for operational altitudes below the International Space Station,” whose orbit can range as low as 370 kilometers. Starlink currently has nearly 6000 satellites orbiting at around 550 kilometers”
Fun fact: Tiāngōng, the Chinese Space Station currently in orbit, operates as high as 450km up (its currently at 360km). So its even closer to the Starlink constellation that the ISS is.
Brkdncr@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Ok FCC, then how do you plan on getting internet to me? Choppy terrestrial with 20% packet loss wasn’t working, Verizon lte with 2mbps upload wasn’t working, hughesnet…do we need to even mention it? Verizon dsl with 1.5/.25 isn’t even internet.
So please tell me how you’re going to do something about it other than deny me solutions? Starlink has been the best thing to happen to rural US in a long time.
JakenVeina@lemm.ee 8 months ago
So, what you’re saying is, their current setup is working for you, and their new proposal for lower-orbit satellites isn’t really necessary?
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I love when people use the phrase “So, what you’re saying is…” unironically.
fubarx@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
The ISS is planned to deorbit in 2031: nasa.gov/faqs-the-international-space-station-tra…
Wonder if the FCC ruling will change after it comes down?
That’s still a lot of satellites floating around that can get in the way. And it doesn’t even include the other LEO providers like Project Kuiper spooling up.
piecat@lemmy.world 8 months ago
At some point there will be more satellites than is feasible to manage.
If they aren’t already, will we start treating them like telephone poles or cell towers?
sirspate@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
It’s already a bit of a mess to manage, especially if you include the debris. Back in 2007 China blew up a satellite, and as of a few years ago that represented almost a third of all tracked space debris… (it has its own wikipedia page) If these jokers ever start deliberately blowing up each others’ satellites, we could end up in a situation where space becomes inaccessible.
nivenkos@lemmy.world 8 months ago
What is the actual technical reasoning? These all have active tracking, I can’t imagine it ever being an issue for missions (compared to defunct Soviet satellites with no tracking, like Kosmos 2221 and Kosmos 1408).
It’d be cool if Starlink could also be used to replace some base stations, although I guess the huge power requirements are an issue there.
r00ty@kbin.life 8 months ago
I would expect it's the sheer number that would be BELOW the ISS. Active tracking or not, there's already plenty of things that influence when you can launch to the ISS. Having to navigate a route through 10,000 satellites between the earth and the ISS is just adding another obstacle they don't need.
The article seems to make clear, they can get this if they clear it with NASA. The implication being NASA believes this will be a problem for them, and if I had to choose who to believe between a company run by Musk, and NASA. I'd choose NASA personally.
yarr@feddit.nl 7 months ago
Has Starlink considered just using really tall antennas? Should be a lot easier than all the risks associated with putting equipment into low Earth orbit.
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
I can SEE his removedass writing a mad xit right now in my head, and I hate that its so easy for me to do this.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeah y’know who’d love a low orbit relay dialed into all the root servers? Rhymes with Tooti Fruity all Rootie?
Veneroso@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Awww poor Musk. Maybe stop helping Russia by giving them access while denying Ukraine. Also fuck you for ruining Twitter .
GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
Twitter was never good, it was just popular.
nivenkos@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I like that you can follow scientists and authors directly at the source though.
Snapz@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It was by no means perfect, but it did become the defacto town square. The Arab Spring was facilitated in part through Twitter and George Floyd related protests were arranged, amplified and shared through Twitter.
There’s plenty of incompetence in Musk, but a significant part of this “effort” was deliberate, as a favor to other like minded billionaires upset and frightened that the people had a working, maturing megaphone. They needed that to be broken, if not fully silenced, and musk was the pathetic piece of shit with daddy issues that the other old money billionaires could convince to do the work here as an attempt to gain their favor.
paraphrand@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Like fast food.
echodot@feddit.uk 7 months ago
Which is why I don’t understand why the likes of Blue Sky and Mastodon try and copy it. It’s a terrible idea.
nivenkos@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Why are you repeating retracted fake news? theguardian.com/…/elon-musk-biographer-admits-sug…
Veneroso@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Thank you. I actually wasn’t aware.
Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 8 months ago
He denied the request by Ukraine to enable starlink on crimea because “it would make SpaceX explicitly implicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation” it would also have been illegal for him to do so because US sanctions prohibits it. The original claim about him disabling it is false and has been debunked. It wasn’t enabled in the first place.
I also find it hilarious that Russia being able to somehow obtain a limited amount of terminals is somehow proof that Elon is helping Russia but at the same time you’re conveniently ignoring the fact that there’s thousands of terminals in use on the Ukrainian side which SpaceX sent there for free when the invasion happened. It’s not Russia he sent those to but Ukraine.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 7 months ago
He didn’t send them all for free, they were also funded by the U.S. government. Sanctions say sales of such would be illegal in Russia. So yes, people in Ukraine can legally purchase and use Starlink and people in Russia legally should not be able too.
So any of his terminals being used illegally are in fact his responsibility. They are using his companies satellites which are included in the sanctions… It doesn’t seem very confusing to me
What part of that is confusing
nivenkos@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The BlueAnon cultists don’t care about the truth.
It’s crazy how polarised these sorts of debates have become. I wish we could have sensible politicians with views like Andrew Yang, Lee Kuan Yew, Robert Zubrin, Nayib Bukele, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, etc. - focus on developing technology and building up infrastructure and institutions for everyone.