SpaceX Wins FCC Approval To Deploy 7,518 Satellites (bloomberg.com) 114
SpaceX won permission to deploy more than 7,000 satellites, far more than all operating spacecraft currently aloft, from U.S. regulators who also moved to reduce a growing risk from space debris as skies grow more crowded. From a report: Space Exploration Technologies has two test satellites aloft, and it earlier won permission for a separate set of 4,425 satellites -- which like the 7,518 satellites authorized Thursday are designed to provide broadband communications. It has said it plans to begin launches next year. Space companies riding innovations that include smaller and cheaper satellites -- with some just 4 inches long and weighing only 3 pounds -- are planning fleets that will fly fast and low, offering communications now commonly handled by larger, more expensive satellites. Right now there are fewer than 2,000 operating satellites, and the planned additional space traffic demands vigilance, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai said before the agency voted Thursday on a variety of space-related matters including SpaceX's application, debris rules, and other space matters.
The thing is... (Score:2)
...Nobody in the FCC will face any consequences if it all goes horribly wrong, so where is their motivation to not let it go horribly wrong? And how do they propose to fix things when (not if) it does?
Re: (Score:2)
"with full retirement benefits and a generous severance package"
I see this complaint regularly on Slashdot. In the US, "retirement benefits" are earned while you work, like Social Security. They can't be taken away just because you are a bad employee. And its more than likely that the "responsible parties" that would approve this would be lifetime employees with 25+ years of service to the agency.
Even government employees who are caught stealing still get retirement benefits and pensions. Now those pension
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. In some states if you are convicted of certain crimes related to your job [governing.com] or or crimes done while on the job [patriotledger.com], your pension is taken away.
Re: (Score:2)
Those examples are accurate and good examples, but for this instance, FCC employees would be federal employees and those rules would not be applicable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Golden parachutes aren't retirement funds, they're bribes to keep people silent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Is it not too much... I mean 7000+ satellites over the US?
Unless they're all geosynchronous, I suspect that they'll be orbiting the entire planet. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Is it not too much... I mean 7000+ satellites over the US?
Unless they're all geosynchronous, I suspect that they'll be orbiting the entire planet. ;)
Most of them will be flying around 350 km so not geosync (36000 km)
Re: (Score:2)
I think peppering near space with thousands of small satellites is just nutty, whether it's Elon or someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they get that far.
Re:The thing is... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about probabilities. The satellites all have to have a mechanism to deorbit them at end-of-life. So if you can get some given estimate of reliability out of the satellites remaining operational through deorbit and the deorbit function working, you can estimate the number of failures you will have, and model the significance of these failures (including how errors in your reliability estimates might affect the outcomes).
Smaller satellites means less potential for debris in the case of a collision, and faster natural deorbit times. For a satellite, the crosssection of thermosphere/exosphere that they pass through is proportional to their radius squared, but their mass is proportional to their radius cubed, so the smaller you make a satellite, the quicker it tends to reenter. Just the fact that we're talking LEO satellites makes any failure modes less significant; GEO failures are more problematic, as the debris persists for much longer, orbits are much more shared, and it's much harder to track GEO debris.
The most recent 7518 satellites are going to be particularly short-lived without reboost, orbiting at only 340km. That's quite close; they're going to need very frequent reboosts. Without reboosts I'd expect them to reenter after only 1-3 months. Remember that ISS (~330km) needs reboosts several times per year, and that's obviously a far higher kg/m^2 object than a Starlink satellite.
Re: (Score:2)
obviously a far higher kg/m^2 object than a Starlink satellite.
Not obvious at all. The ISS has very large solar arrays and radiators, plus a lot of habitable volume (i.e. filled with nothing but air). I expect most satellites to have a higher kg/m^2 value.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC would only approve their frequency use plan of 7000 satellites, and not 7000 satellites per se as clutter. That would be something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody in the FCC will face any consequences if it all goes horribly wrong, so where is their motivation to not let it go horribly wrong? And how do they propose to fix things when (not if) it does?
The only thing that can go horribly wrong is SpaceX somehow leaves a fundamental design flaw in their satellites and they don't work and all have to be deorbited early. This lower constellation of satellites will orbit at 340 kilometers altitude. That's an orbital sphere of 1.45 x 10^6 square kilometers. That's a satellite every 193 square kilometers, and these are low-weight satellites, under 500 kg each, much much smaller than Hubble or most geosynchronous satellites. If you were sitting on one of the
Re: (Score:2)
The other way they can fail is when they fly over competitor nation countries without their approval and the decide to deorbit the craft with directed energy weapons. Unfortunately in the current diplomatic climate, this is all too likely to happen. Honestly tall towers make the most sense, connected by fibre optics, simple, readily updated and way cheaper and really secure. Nothing beats fibre optic cable for cost, durability and data through put, hook up some tall and not so tall towers for wireless and y
Re: (Score:1)
The worst timeline. But also the funnest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
FCC owns the radio frequency available above US ground. Those satellites will use those frequencies to communicate with ground. They are approving those.
Tragedy of the commons (Score:5, Insightful)
America doesn't own space. What right do they have to give permission anyway? Space belongs to all of us.
We regulate access to common spaces so idiots like you don't ruin it for everyone else. Please go study the concept of tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org]. You want to launch a rocket from US territory? Then the US government is going to have a few questions on the behalf of the citizens of the US. You can launch from somewhere else if you have the means but don't be surprised when other governments have similar questions.
I mean "USians" of course, not America, because America is a continent, not a country.
Please recall what the "A" in USA stands for. You see any other countries with that word in the name of their country? Were you confused at all about what someone is saying when they say "American"? No you were not so take your trolling elsewhere.
Re: (Score:1)
"Please recall what the "A" in USA stands for. You see any other countries with that word in the name of their country? Were you confused at all about what someone is saying when they say "American"? No you were not so take your trolling elsewhere."
That doesn't change the fact that the A in USA stands for the continent America, you genius you...
Re: (Score:2)
Modded up, WHY?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is only one right in this world, the right to do what nobody stops you from doing. Space doesn't belong to everyone, space belongs to whoever can assert dominance and prevent anyone else from doing anything about it. Unless you are China or Russia your chances of flapping your arms and flying to the moon are probably higher than stopping the US from doing something if it can't be convinced to stop itself.
Sure (Score:3)
It's Interesting that the approval by a bureaucratic agency in a single nation is all that's required to make significant use of the finite orbit of all the World.
What's your better idea? (Score:2)
It's Interesting that the approval by a bureaucratic agency in a single nation is all that's required to make significant use of the finite orbit of all the World.
You have a better idea? One that actually could be accomplished?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here "the sky is falling" is slashdots favorite past time..
Re: (Score:2)
I assume
Well there's your problem. Stop doing that. You're probably not very good at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
GEO is effectively two dimensional. Everything passes through the equator, so you can't have two sats at the same longitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sure (Score:5, Informative)
It's Interesting that the approval by a bureaucratic agency in a single nation is all that's required to make significant use of the finite orbit of all the World.
Actually, the FCC is simply approving the frequencies the satellites use while over US territory. They don't care about how many satellites or what orbits these satellites use. They will require additional approvals from the governments from other countries to operate over their territory.
This is basically a green light for frequency coordination, that Space X has the right to transmit from space on a set of frequencies, while flying over the USA.
Re:Sure (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's Interesting that the approval by a bureaucratic agency in a single nation is all that's required to make significant use of the finite orbit of all the World.
That's not even what they're approving. The US FCC is approving SpaceX's use of the radio spectrum by their satellites. The actual physical use of the orbital slots are very much secondary. Until the SpaceX constellation, that part was pretty much pro forma. This is the first time when paying attention to the paragraph about deorbit plans actually matters.
Incidentally, SpaceX will have to get approval from every country's FCC-equivalent if they want to provide service there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, having government control interactions between private entities is an element of Fascism [fee.org]. Not surprising, the FCC happened, when Fascism was hot [nybooks.com], introduced by an authoritarian President [fff.org] beloved by contemporary Fascists [mises.org].
I'm not your "bud" — you should not even dream about any kind of familiar affiliation, or you may be overcome by suicidal disappointment upon waking up...
Fascism? (Score:3)
How did we get into the state of Fascism so advanced, a private enterprise needs government's permission to offer services to other private enterprises?
If you think this is fascism, you have NO idea what that word means.
Anyway the answer to your idiotic question is in the Constitution, specifically the bits about interstate commerce. When those services involved common spaces of finite quantity (like radio frequencies) you need an independent regulator to make sure the Tragedy of the Commons does not occur. We codified this into the Constitution precisely for circumstances like this.
Being a private enterprise doesn't mean you get to do anything you want
Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! (Score:4, Funny)
That's right: any attempt to regulate the radio spectrum is FASCIST!!!1!!!
The only way to manage radio transmissions that without enslaving Free Citizens is a free-for-all. Let the man with the biggest amplifier and the biggest dish win; any attempt to keep him down is tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX are merely delivering other people's devices to space. Even if we were to stipulate, that those other people do need government's permission, SpaceX does not... Or, rather, should not...
Re: (Score:2)
Right: SpaceX ought to be able to disperse truckloads of sand and gravel in long-lived orbits if paying customers ask them to.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, thank you for admitting, it is none of Federal Communications Commission's business. Second, yes, if dispersing gravel is how one chooses to pursue happiness, Executive Branch has no right to interfere with the pursuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone else on this discussion pointed out that somehow, the FCC does seem to be in charge of regulating satellite orbits. Somebody has to do it, regardless of you ill-formed opinions.
But more importantly, In you libertarian paradise, what happens to the happiness of the Free Citizens who paid billions of dollars for the existing satellites that will get wiped out by all this sand and gravel? Are they now supposed to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, stand their ground and shoot these gravel lofters in
Re: (Score:2)
Then I can only inquire once again: "WTF does SpaceX need FCC's permission?"
An unsubstantiated claim...
They can sue the dispenser of the gravel for damages, duh...
Re: (Score:2)
They can sue the dispenser of the gravel for damages, duh...
On what basis? Who controls right-of-way in outer space? The FCC?
Who is going to enforce any judgements? Could it be the very same jackbooted fascist government that you spoke of?
Re: (Score:2)
Property damage.
The government. Unlike retirement, healthcare, education, and the like, enforcing law actually is the government's prerogative even according to Libertarians.
But for the Executive to enforce the judgement, the Judiciary would need to first render it. Because separation of powers...
Creation of FCC — pushed by an authoritarian President [fff.org] beloved by contemporary Fascists [mises.org] — was Congress abdicating (some of) its powers to the Executi
Re: (Score:2)
Under just what law and in what jurisdiction do you have standing to sue over "property damage" in outer space? After all, you left your property far outside the boundaries of this nation altogether.
What kind of a deterrent do you think these lawsuits would be anyway? Clearly, some jackass could destroy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware with just a few million dollars invested in launching space debris. Would any of these people actually get remuneration? Of course not.
It makes far more sens
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, once again, for confirming, FCC has no jurisdiction.
In a free country, the government can not "simply forbid" anything. In the US in particular, the Congress has to pass a law making the practice illegal first — just as murder already is.
It is too bad, your kind of feeble-mindedness is so wide-spread...
Argumentum ad populum...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need the government's permission to offer services. You need the government's permission to do various things that may be required for you to offer those services. For instance, try selling radio communication services at the same frequency as you local TV station, and see how ell that goes. My guess is it's less than 24 hours until your door gets kicked in and you get arrested. But it's not because "you sold the service", it's cause you're fucking up the TV signals
Broadband for all (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But does it fundamentally cost a fortune?
We're talking about, say, a 50-mile road with farm entrances every couple of miles, and each of them with a mile+ driveway to their house. Stringing up fiber under those circumstances is tens of thousands of dollars per home. Nothing the home owner will ever pay for the use of that service will come close to paying for the cost of provisioning (let alone maintaining) it.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave it to Musk to finally bring about Teledesic. Best part? No fucking Gates.
Current number of ALL satellites in orbit is (Score:5, Informative)
Current number of ALL satellites in orbit is 4857, BTW, and the number of _working_ ones is less than half of that.
Just so you know the scale of what they're trying to do here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Current number of ALL satellites in orbit is (Score:3)
These will be LEO satellites to maintain low latency, constantly boosted back into their orbits and replaced when they run out of fuel.
Elon Musk's mom (Score:1)
she so fat, 7518 smaller fat women orbit around her.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a low orbit, around 550km height for phase1, and 340km for phase2.
The higher orbit, 550km, is expected to decay naturally in 5 years for a totally non-controllable satellite, but 6 months for one under control. They plan to de-orbit them intentionally near end-of-life, so it is only if one has utterly failed that the 5 year figure comes into play. Normally, they should re-enter in 6 months or less from EOL.
The lower orbit should decay naturally in 1-2 years, and of course faster under a controlled EO
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a full employment program for SpaceX.
Re: (Score:3)
They will launch up to 20 or 25 sats per launch. So a few hundred launches. But yes, it will be many launches. The thing is that SpaceX is right now the only company who could do that: With the first stage being reusable at least 10 times, they will need to build only about 30 or 40 of them. With all other launchers the launch costs alone would be prohibitive.
But sure, it's a fucking big project on an altogether new scale. It can easily break SpaceX. Or earn them enough money to build their Mars spacecraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure their goal is to just dump out a convenient small amount 10-20 as a piggy back on each commercial flight. That would work well with the decaying orbit strategy with cheapo satellites. It would be pretty amazing for innova
The Door is Closing (Score:2)
I think this might mark the beginning of the end of humanity sending signals out into space indiscriminately, at least at the scale we do now. I'm talking primarily about high-frequency radio, television, and radar to a lesser extent. When people ask why we don't hear from other civilizations, ours may be an example. Our own signals started around 1939 and could potentially be dramatically reduced (though probably never completely) by 2039, so just 100 short years.
If someone comes along and sells relatively
Re: (Score:2)
Who's cleaning up the space garbage? (Score:1)
Anyone who is launching over 100 satellites should have a plan for how to remove existing space junk from orbit. When those 7000+ satellites stop working, they're going to be in the way of newer satellites.
3 wishes (Score:4, Funny)
Elon Musk drove with his golden Tesla to the sea to do some diving.
He donned his golden air bottle and his golden diving mask and went for a dive.
In the deep waters he detected a bottle with a golden cap. He took it and swam back to land.
After opening the bottle a genie appeared. 'Thanks a lot for rescuing me, I was down there for centuries!'
Musk replied: 'Glad to help' and began preparing to dive again.
The genie said: 'What about the 3 wishes?'
Musk sighed and asked.'What do you need?'
All at once (Score:2)
The amazing thing is.. (Score:2)
The amazing thing is that FCC Director Pai didn't bow to his big telco masters and deny SpaceX the permit. They must be behind in their payments.
Re: (Score:2)
More like the space above the whole planet, for American entities. Per an international treaty, every spacefaring nation has a body to regulate the actions of what they put in orbit. It's the FCC here as an artifact of history because communications satellites so dominated the early ones, and probably still do overall. Also makes one less entity to apply to for communications since they regulate the radio communications any satellite has to use.