Slashdot Mirror


SpaceX Wins FCC Approval To Deploy 7,518 Satellites (bloomberg.com)

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.

114 comments

  1. Deployed over 7,000 times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In your mouth, myDAMN balls have

    1. Re:Deployed over 7,000 times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Master Yoda?

  2. The thing is... by jd · · Score: 1

    ...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?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re: The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My new favorite pick up line: look, honey, itâ(TM)s a constellation of space debris? Will that fly?

    2. Re:The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm... they don't want to go down in history as the biggest bunch of idiots ever, and want their children and grandchildren to not have to be thrust back into the horse and buggy age due to a runaway Kessler effect? Or are you suggesting that they be executed if this should come to pass, a la Hitler?

    3. Re:The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the shit hits the fan, the responsible parties and/or fallguys will resign from the FCC (with full retirement benefits and a generous severance package) and immediately take a highly paid position at SpaceX or SpaceX's lobbyist. This will give them plenty of time to regret the mistakes they made.

    4. Re:The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it not too much... I mean 7000+ satellites over the US?

      Because if they're planning to put them all over the world, that's nice, too. I was willing to put some satellites of mine over the whole world, too -- including over the United States.

      Do unto others...

      I'm not Luddite or something. I'm just pro being decent with your neighbors.

    5. Re:The thing is... by Rei · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "Define 'interesting'". "Oh God, oh God, we're all gonna die?"
    6. Re:The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm... they don't want to go down in history as the biggest bunch of idiots ever

      Their actions (in general not this particular case) seem to indicate otherwise.

    7. Re:The thing is... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      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. ;)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    8. Re:The thing is... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:The thing is... by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      "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 pensions go to pay back what was stolen first, but once that is satisfied, the people get whatever they earned.

    10. Re:The thing is... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      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 these satellites in orbit, you would have a hard time picking out the nearest other satellite with a pair of binoculars.

      The only people who think something else can go wrong are innumerate or stupid.

    11. Re:The thing is... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      They can't be taken away just because you are a bad employee.

      Not true. In some states if you are convicted of certain crimes related to your job or or crimes done while on the job, your pension is taken away.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    12. Re:The thing is... by haruchai · · Score: 2

      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)

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re: The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As it should be.

    14. Re:The thing is... by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      Those examples are accurate and good examples, but for this instance, FCC employees would be federal employees and those rules would not be applicable.

    15. Re:The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm... they don't want to go down in history as the biggest bunch of idiots ever, and want their children and grandchildren to not have to be thrust back into the horse and buggy age due to a runaway Kessler effect?

      Ummm, remember leaded gasoline? The oil companies knew damn well the dangers were real, yet pushed back at reforms to get rid of lead. And since the wind blows indiscriminately, they were endangering their own progeny's health. And this is just one example. History is littered with powerful people who either think they are above the consequences of their actions, or are simply too stupid to realize the consequences of their actions.

      Or are you suggesting that they be executed if this should come to pass, a la Hitler?

      Interesting. So is all capital punishment "a la Hitler"? Or, if jd thinks capital punishment is an appropriate punishment here (there isn't even any proof that that is the level of punishment they were thinking, you're just trying to put words in their mouth), is there something specific to this situation that makes it "a la Hitler"?

    16. Re:The thing is... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Then we need to change the law on the Federal level. Get convicted of ANY felony and lose your pension. Put some fear in their heads!

    17. Re:The thing is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, much of my original objection still applies, though I acknowledge they must not be geostationary at that altitude.

      Now, suppose a company from another country did that: what would you think?

      Not to rain on Mr. Musk parade, I even find him to be a cool guy -- "pedo" things and all --, but we need to come up with some international registry to keep these satellites from bumping into other things. We have reasonably good practices regarding territorial waters -- and even so there are misunderstandings.

      Maybe something like Internet regulation... just applied to space use.

      In some years, not too far from now, things might change quite a bit: just like aviation was once prohibitive and now drones have become a problem, we might have some bold entrepreneurs to launch a micro satellite -- by themselves or by paying companies such as SpaceX (think Russian or Chinese here) -- and voilà: drone problems on an interplanetary scale.

      Better think about it now.

    18. Re:The thing is... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      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 you are done. Laying fibreoptic in the boon docks, just get a dozer with a blade at the back forced to the required depth and then just dragged along as it feeds flexible conduit with the cable already in there under ground and then back fills, quick and cheap.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    19. Re:The thing is... by jd · · Score: 1

      Golden parachutes aren't retirement funds, they're bribes to keep people silent.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    20. Re:The thing is... by jd · · Score: 1

      Only if they get that far.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    21. Re:The thing is... by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:The thing is... by mangastudent · · Score: 1

      If a company in deep trouble wants to be able to hire an executive who might be able to turn it around, a Gold Parachute is generally a required part of the offered compensation. Because the odds are he'll fail, and there's a good chance he'll be blamed for not doing the impossible, it could be the last job at that level including normal salary and benefits he'll ever have.

    23. Re:The thing is... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I think peppering near space with thousands of small satellites is just nutty, whether it's Elon or someone else.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. More Fake News Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sad! The spherical earth conspiracy is at it again promoting satellites and orbits around a spherical earth. My woke brethren and I know this is just an attempt to control our thoughts and condition our minds into governmental servitude.

    Wake up sheeple! Join the flat earth society and see the true divine light!

    1. Re:More Fake News Propaganda by RickyShade · · Score: 1

      The worst timeline. But also the funnest.

    2. Re:More Fake News Propaganda by BlackOverflow · · Score: 0

      You flat earthers are so ignorant! We all know it is shaped like a donut.

  4. Sure by rmdingler · · 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.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Sure by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      Geosynchronous orbit is ~35780 km. Calculating the surface area of a sphere with that radius (using google), gives me a surface area of 1.61 * 10^10 square kilometers. How "finite" do you think the available "room" in such an orbit is?

    2. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First mover advantage.

    3. Re:Sure by bobbied · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Sure by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      What do Geo orbits have to do with the topic at hand?

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    5. Re:Sure by mangastudent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The FCC is also the treaty designated US government regulatory body that makes sure the satellites won't cause other troubles. See for example this story of a company that didn't listen to the FCC's no and went to India. Last I checked, it wasn't going well for their future plans.

    6. Re:Sure by Areyoukiddingme · · 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.

      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.

    7. Re:Sure by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      It's not so much the permission to be in space, as much as it is to handle all of the elements involved with getting up there. The means fuel, contracts with companies that want you to put stuff in space for them, etc...

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    8. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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 incorrect in its entirety.

    9. Re:Sure by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      I assume these will be in a geosynchronous orbit, but I know nothing about the topic at hand. Frankly whether it's LEO or Geo, it really doesn't change the numbers that much. It's an enormous amount of available space, and so we certainly don't need to be "the sky is falling" about 7,000 satellites.

    10. Re:Sure by lgw · · Score: 2

      GEO is effectively two dimensional. Everything passes through the equator, so you can't have two sats at the same longitude.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Sure by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You must be new here "the sky is falling" is slashdots favorite past time..

    12. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, geosynchronous is not a spherical surface - it is a circle. Off the equator the satellite moves, which negates the one interesting point of geosynchronous orbit.

      Second, you don't need a geosynchronous orbit for this use. Reaching that orbit is expensive, LEO is much cheaper.

    13. Re: Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As finite as the single really useful orbit above the equator

    14. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any nation can put as many ships into the oceans as it desires, why is space different?

    15. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /* Whenever US commercial companies want to send a satellite into orbit, they must apply for a license with the Federal Communications Commission, to get access to the radio frequencies needed to communicate with the satellite. The same goes for international companies hoping to do business with their spacecraft in the US, too.

      from the article you linked.

    16. Re:Sure by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      I assume

      Well there's your problem. Stop doing that. You're probably not very good at it.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    17. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how precise does your longitude have to be?

      Think about it this way: a GEO satellite is maybe the size of a bus. How many buses can you park nose-to-tail along the equator? Obviously you wouldn't place satellites that close to each other, but even at one bus per mile you could fit nearly 25,000 buses along the equator. Since GEO orbit has a radius of 6.6 times the Earth's radius, 25,000 equally-spaced satellites in GEO would be 6.6 apart from each other.

      At this point, though, station keeping is not good enough to place them that close. I think the closest they get is about 90 miles apart, yielding 1800 slots around the equator, or 5 per degree of longitude.

      If you wanted to deploy 7500 satellites in GEO you could put them over 20 miles apart.

      dom

    18. Re:Sure by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      Pretty limited actually. Not because you mechanically couldn't fit more stuff in there, but because radios start interfering with each other, satellite dishes only have so much angular resolution and there is only so much bandwidth to share.

    19. Re:Sure by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      You assume wrong and you are also wrong about available space, there might be infinite space up there, but that doesn't mean you can put infinite amount of comsats up there and have them all functioning. The limit is something you haven't thought about and it's a pretty tight limit, try to assume less and think more.

    20. Re:Sure by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Also your math was wrong as well. Altitude isn't measured from the core of the planet, it's from sea level.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    21. Re:Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like the denial letter came on Dec 12 and the launch was on Jan 12. I think the launch was planned with the optimistic assumption that the FCC would grant the license.

      In other words, they didn't get denied and then start looking for a country that didn't care. Rather they arranged a launch with a company that happened to find space on board the Indian rocket at a time where they hoped they would have been granted the license. By the time the grant was denied it was probably too late to cancel the launch.

      dom

    22. Re:Sure by mangastudent · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That does put a slightly different cast on what they did, and likely absolves ISRO/India of most of the blame (I'm assuming the company just plain lied after they got their denial, by omission if nothing else), but doesn't make them look any better. "Move fast and break things", well, only the first is a useful motto in rocketry.

  5. Deal With It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Law in space is what the US (and to a lesser extent Russia) says it is. Complaints can be filed in person at our office on the surface of the moon.

  6. Re:America by mangastudent · · Score: 1

    By treaty, the governments of the world agreed to some regulation on putting up satellites (see the Kessler syndrome if you're enough of an idiot to believe this isn't required, including leaving open the option to travel to Mars for the next few generations), and because communications ones were the predominate type then (and probably still now), it falls to the US FCC for US entities. If SpaceX wasn't a US company, it would be the government entity designated for it. See also the US company that got a FCC denial, then slipped their launch past Indian regulators and got ISRO to launch their too tiny payloads.

  7. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Tragedy of the commons by sjbe · · Score: 4, 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. 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.

    1. Re:Tragedy of the commons by noodler · · 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...

    2. Re:Tragedy of the commons by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 1

      Modded up, WHY?

      --
      Take off every 'sig' !!
  9. What's your better idea? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    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?

  10. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by Jahoda · · Score: 1

    Let me make sure I understand you clearly here: Having an FCC to regulate communications is Fascism. Sure thing bud, whatever you say.

  11. Broadband for all by mirthful1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This Starlink super-constellation has a real opportunity to disrupt the current broadband market in the US in a big way; not to mention the world. Broadband _anywhere_; at sea, in the air, rural areas, extreme areas... put up your antenna and you're good to go. Excited to see what the bandwidth and pricing look like. I hear "5g like speed" and "inexpensive". But we'll s ee. Also, I wonder if this project (and others with similar goals) explain some of the incredible slow-walking of rural broadband initiatives. Perhaps it's one of those "Why spend millions digging trenches and laying wire to get folks onboard when this kind of thing is just around the corner". Sucks to be in a rural area with maybe just shoddy DSL... but maybe the worm has turned here.

    1. Re:Broadband for all by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I agree. The rural (or even just semi-rural exurb) broadband market in the US is miserable. For pretty reasonable reasons. It costs a fortune to serve a small number of people on that back side of some hill or valley via fiber. This could really make a difference.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    2. Re:Broadband for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will be a litmus test for SpaceX though, will it turn into broadband for all _or_ just faster links for high frequency traders and rich guys?

    3. Re:Broadband for all by Xylantiel · · Score: 1

      But does it fundamentally cost a fortune? Seems like the road to drive there would cost a lot more. I'm thinking that basic cost is not the issue.

    4. Re:Broadband for all by mirthful1 · · Score: 1

      Valid point. From what I can tell of Musk though it's more likely the former than the later. Aso HFT folks have been 'tamed' a bit in the last 5 years and many more trading systems have placed teensy (but non-negligible to the HFT folks) speed bumps into the system to effectively negate the HFT advantage. But who knows... if they're willing to pay enough...

    5. Re:Broadband for all by mirthful1 · · Score: 1

      I honestly never got the economics of why rural areas were so hard to light up. They are there, for sure. And it sucks to be stuck in one of these areas (unless you're a motivated geek, haha). I hope rural areas finally get that last bit of the country with HSB. Been a LONG wait for many.

    6. Re:Broadband for all by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Leave it to Musk to finally bring about Teledesic. Best part? No fucking Gates.

    7. Re:Broadband for all by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Broadband for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best part? No fucking Gates.

      Yeah but it has fucking Musk.

  12. Current number of ALL satellites in orbit is by melted · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Current number of ALL satellites in orbit is by ganv · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is a huge increase in the number of satellites. There are about 500,000 pieces of space debris being tracked (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html). The key question though is about the lifetime of the orbits the satellites are being placed in. There is little problem with putting lots of small tracked craft in very low orbits with less than 50 year time to natural de-orbit. Space is big, the satellites can be tracked, and small craft that burn up on re-entry pose little threat to people on earth. The real problem is in geosynchronous orbit where decay times are many centuries or more. Whatever you put up there stays, and because new satellites tend to be put in the same crowded orbits, collisions and even kessler syndrome scenarios need to be carefully considered.

    2. Re: Current number of ALL satellites in orbit is by melted · · Score: 2

      These will be LEO satellites to maintain low latency, constantly boosted back into their orbits and replaced when they run out of fuel.

  13. Re:America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not yours until you can defend it.

  14. Elon Musk's mom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    she so fat, 7518 smaller fat women orbit around her.

  15. Which orbits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which orbits will be used for these satellites, and what is the expected lifetime of the satellites before they decay and de-orbit? That makes a huge amount of difference in the degree of reasonableness.

    1. Re:Which orbits? by Anonymous Coward · · 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 EOL.

      The satellites are small compared to most, which means they decay faster.

    2. Re:Which orbits? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Yow, that's a lot of turnover.
      Sounds like a full employment program for SpaceX.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Which orbits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they can keep them up longer with active propulsion. The GP info is about what happens when they are de-orbited, intentionally or otherwise.
      .

  16. Re:America by shaitand · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The same right they have to authorize the building and launching of ships from their shores.

    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.

  17. Fascism? by sjbe · · Score: 2

    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 without limitation regardless of the impact on your fellow citizens.

  18. How many launches will this take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know how many launches it will take to put 7500 satellites in orbit? It would have to be dozens at a time, right? Otherwise they would have to launch a rocket several times a day for years to complete it.

    1. Re:How many launches will this take? by joh · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:How many launches will this take? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      They are somewhere around 1 launch every 2-3 weeks. If they dump out 10-100 of these little guys each launch they could work up to a pretty high number in short order. India space agency already has the record for 104 satellites in one launch so it seems pretty reasonable.

      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 innovation since they could constantly be upgrading the specs as they constantly replenish their numbers..

      They could also send out good sized swarms when they do test flights. I could imagine they just dump all 7500 out in one go with a dedicated launch.

    3. Re:How many launches will this take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's a good substitute for not being able to recover second stages. If you can't recover them, then fill them with a bunch of Starlink sats and maybe even take advantage of motor restart to have a better variety of deployment orbits.

  19. What is the permission for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FCC: If you can get the sat's up, then it is ok for them to transmit.

    So who approves the plan for putting that many things in orbit and not making a space a big junk yard?

  20. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, 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.

  21. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    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

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  22. Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm amazed that you can identify all possible Black Swans. This sounds like an opportunity to me to get a great space weapon for the cost of bribing someone for the crypto keys. They're going to have to do significant orbit maintenance that low, an it would be nicely embarrassing to hit someone else's launch vehicle.

  23. Hold on just a second there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They haven't even specified which planet these satellites will be orbiting.

  24. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by mi · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Having an FCC to regulate communications is Fascism

    Yes, having government control interactions between private entities is an element of Fascism. Not surprising, the FCC happened, when Fascism was hot, introduced by an authoritarian President beloved by contemporary Fascists.

    Sure thing bud

    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...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  25. The Door is Closing by pr0t0 · · Score: 1

    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 inexpensive access to the entire planet, there's not much reason to build expensive and high-powered towers and dishes trying to overcome limited range (and thus limited customers). I'll bet by 2100 we'll have become pretty quiet, electromagnetically speaking.

    --
    I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
    1. Re:The Door is Closing by Socguy · · Score: 1

      Na, by the time any signals reach hostile aliens and those aliens can mount any kind of armed invasion a few thousand years will have passed.

  26. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by mi · · Score: 1

    That's right: any attempt to regulate the radio spectrum is FASCIST!!!1!!!

    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...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  27. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    Right: SpaceX ought to be able to disperse truckloads of sand and gravel in long-lived orbits if paying customers ask them to.

  28. The Only Thing That Can Go Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The only thing that can go horribly wrong is..."

    Sounds like something that Persian emperor Xerxes I would have said.

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Xerxes-I

    Want to begin your downfall? Become bloated, arrogant, and assume success is yours for the taking.

  29. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by mi · · Score: 1

    Right: SpaceX ought to be able to disperse truckloads of sand and gravel in long-lived orbits if paying customers ask them to.

    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.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  30. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    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 retaliation for destroying their property?

  31. Who's cleaning up the space garbage? by jsepeta · · Score: 0

    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.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  32. Youtube animation of Starlink orbital planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEIUdMiColU

    That link has some animations showing how the satellites will move in orbit. Also info on sat-to-sat interlinks and more.

  33. So . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FCC has jurisdiction over the entire planet? Man, this species *deserves* to burn.

    1. Re:So . . . by mangastudent · · Score: 1

      The FCC has jurisdiction over the entire planet?

      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.

  34. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by mi · · Score: 1

    FCC does seem to be in charge of regulating satellite orbits

    Then I can only inquire once again: "WTF does SpaceX need FCC's permission?"

    Somebody has to do it [regulate satellite orbits -mi]

    An unsubstantiated claim...

    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?

    They can sue the dispenser of the gravel for damages, duh...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  35. 3 wishes by nospam007 · · Score: 3, 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?'

  36. Self-Cleaning Actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. THe FCC requires just such a plan and SpaceX complied in their filings LONG AGO.
    Do catch up.
    2. The sats can deorbit naturally by drag or with their thrusters.

    Documentation: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0329/FCC-18-38A1.pdf

  37. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    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?

  38. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by mi · · Score: 1

    On what basis?

    Property damage.

    Who is going to enforce any judgements?

    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 beloved by contemporary Fascists — was Congress abdicating (some of) its powers to the Executive.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  39. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    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 sense for the government to simply forbid launching space debris, just like it forbids you from murdering people. Luckily, feeble-minded hard-core libertarians who can't comprehend this fact consistently comprise about 1% of the electorate, so we don't really have to worry about such scenarios.

  40. Re:WTF does it need PERMISSION?! by mi · · Score: 1

    After all, you left your property far outside the boundaries of this nation altogether.

    Thank you, once again, for confirming, FCC has no jurisdiction.

    It makes far more sense for the government to simply forbid

    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...

    1% of the electorate

    Argumentum ad populum... A fallacy...

    This is my last response to you — I have no time for hostile morons. If you are sincerely interested in the problem of cooperation in space, look into how humanity has cooperated at sea, outside of any country's territorial waters. But you aren't going to find anything justifying the FCC's mandate there either. Nor is there anything about "simply forbidding" private enterprises to sail where they please.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  41. All at once by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    With the BFR it would just take one launch.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  42. The amazing thing is.. by h8sg8s · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Organization? You must be joking..
  43. Drudge Report by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just read on Drudge Report:

    'FCC tells SPACEX can deploy up to 11,943 satellites'