An important and very respectful rebuttal can be found in the comments of that article. Honestly, my eyes glazed over at some of his content—there's so many assumptions that seem just...
An important and very respectful rebuttal can be found in the comments of that article. Honestly, my eyes glazed over at some of his content—there's so many assumptions that seem just cherry-picked out of thin air, that are then carried through to make his final points, that I'm skeptical of many of the claims made here.
Also, economics is actually only one of many concerns with satellite mega-constellations; I'd argue far more important issues lie with ensuring a well-managed framework is in place for orbital debris, spectrum management, and night sky pollution—these aren't addressed in this article (which is fine, if you're discussing economics, it's out of scope). None of these exist at the moment. It's the wild west up there.
I agree that there's plenty of need for a global regulatory framework, but it's looking like we're heading back to the days of nation-state territoriality and assertions of sovereign authority,...
I agree that there's plenty of need for a global regulatory framework, but it's looking like we're heading back to the days of nation-state territoriality and assertions of sovereign authority, with a side helping of corporate feudalism.
In fact, the need to excavate the details of the system from government regulatory filings and cryptic/bombastic public statements is symptomatic of excessive privatization. There really does need to be more transparency before anyone can properly evaluate the logic, risks, and viability of the project.
The article does glancingly mention commons issues - the appropriation of otherwise unclaimed public space for private purposes.
There's some fanboyish hand-waving about the very low orbit being effective enough for debris prevention. [I have some longer-term concerns about unrestricted stratospheric deposition of metal oxide particles, but we're not burning up that much debris yet.]
Starlink isn't the only communications company trying to blanket the Earth with satellites, and gold rush problems are already arising with high frontier space grabs - at least one company decided it was better to ask forgiveness than permission.
Yeah, Swarm Technologies got swatted pretty hard after that and it seems like that delayed them for a while. They seem to be moving now, though. Ultimately, the launch providers will make sure...
Yeah, Swarm Technologies got swatted pretty hard after that and it seems like that delayed them for a while. They seem to be moving now, though.
Ultimately, the launch providers will make sure they don't launch anything without permission. They got away with it once because the launch provider assumed they did get permission.
For SpaceX it's a little different since they are the launch provider, but that also means they know better and are unlikely to do anything like that.
This is a meticulous exploration of the economic and engineering logic behind SpaceX's Starlink project. Though there's a considerable amount of speculation, since SpaceX hasn't been very...
This is a meticulous exploration of the economic and engineering logic behind SpaceX's Starlink project.
Though there's a considerable amount of speculation, since SpaceX hasn't been very forthcoming about its ultimate plans for the satellite constellation, Casey Handmer is well-qualified to comment.
An important and very respectful rebuttal can be found in the comments of that article. Honestly, my eyes glazed over at some of his content—there's so many assumptions that seem just cherry-picked out of thin air, that are then carried through to make his final points, that I'm skeptical of many of the claims made here.
Also, economics is actually only one of many concerns with satellite mega-constellations; I'd argue far more important issues lie with ensuring a well-managed framework is in place for orbital debris, spectrum management, and night sky pollution—these aren't addressed in this article (which is fine, if you're discussing economics, it's out of scope). None of these exist at the moment. It's the wild west up there.
I agree that there's plenty of need for a global regulatory framework, but it's looking like we're heading back to the days of nation-state territoriality and assertions of sovereign authority, with a side helping of corporate feudalism.
In fact, the need to excavate the details of the system from government regulatory filings and cryptic/bombastic public statements is symptomatic of excessive privatization. There really does need to be more transparency before anyone can properly evaluate the logic, risks, and viability of the project.
The article does glancingly mention commons issues - the appropriation of otherwise unclaimed public space for private purposes.
There's some fanboyish hand-waving about the very low orbit being effective enough for debris prevention. [I have some longer-term concerns about unrestricted stratospheric deposition of metal oxide particles, but we're not burning up that much debris yet.]
Starlink isn't the only communications company trying to blanket the Earth with satellites, and gold rush problems are already arising with high frontier space grabs - at least one company decided it was better to ask forgiveness than permission.
Yeah, Swarm Technologies got swatted pretty hard after that and it seems like that delayed them for a while. They seem to be moving now, though.
Ultimately, the launch providers will make sure they don't launch anything without permission. They got away with it once because the launch provider assumed they did get permission.
For SpaceX it's a little different since they are the launch provider, but that also means they know better and are unlikely to do anything like that.
This is a meticulous exploration of the economic and engineering logic behind SpaceX's Starlink project.
Though there's a considerable amount of speculation, since SpaceX hasn't been very forthcoming about its ultimate plans for the satellite constellation, Casey Handmer is well-qualified to comment.