Quote from: su27k on 10/06/2021 02:33 amNothing obviously interesting jumps out with regard to failure details, the measures they took to minimize collision probability for satellites lost propulsion but still have attitude control is new. But more interesting to me is the following complaint:Seriously? The complaint is nothing new. The answers to the questions are the most detailed account they've given of how they manage collision avoidance with impaired satellites and what kind of failures they've experienced.
Nothing obviously interesting jumps out with regard to failure details, the measures they took to minimize collision probability for satellites lost propulsion but still have attitude control is new. But more interesting to me is the following complaint:
<snip>According to Rogozin, Starlink can also be used to deliver "purely political, and, most likely, anti-Russian content" directly to mobile phones.<snip>
Got my Starlink kit a few days ago, and lashed the dish onto the top of my chimney. It took about 10 minutes to find a satellite and connect. Preliminary speed tests show from 50 to 200 mb/s down and 15 to 40 mb/s up. The outages are frequent but very short... so far.I like the Starlink app's statistics reporting, showing time & duration of outages/obstructions. Unfortunately, the Starlink router is pretty primative, so I picked up a TP-Link ER605 Multi-WAN router and configured it to do automatic fallback switching to my old DSL modem, and include my existing LAN. So far, so good, time will tell. But I miss the diagnostics that the Starlink router provides.
If you are in the Seattle area I'm sorry to hear you are getting any outages at all. I would have hoped they would have good coverage at that latitude. You mentioned obstructions -- do you have trees or buildings blocking clear line of sight?And how long are your outages?
A paper attempting to apply NEPA to space: Major Federal Actions Significantly Affecting the Quality of the Space Environment: Applying NEPA to Federal and Federally Authorized Outer Space ActivitiesQuoteThe United States’ landmark environmental law, the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (“NEPA”), requires U.S. federal agencies to consider theenvironmental impacts of “major federal actions significantly affecting thequality of the human environment.” The major agencies involved in spaceactivities or regulation generally limit their environmental reviews of spaceactivities, with only some consideration of terrestrial and space environmentalimpacts. This review argues that NEPA and existing case law supports theproposition that the “human environment” includes the “outer spaceenvironment.” It reviews the historical role of space in human culture, emergingcommercial and scientific uses of space, and the potential impacts of NewSpaceactivities on both the terrestrial and space environments. By examining statutorylanguage and legislative intent, this review finds that current agency practicesare likely not compliant with NEPA, particularly as they relate to not consideringterrestrial environmental impacts from federally-authorized space activities.Current case law on NEPA extraterritoriality, particularly EDF v. Massey,further supports the application of NEPA to the space environment. U.S.spacecraft fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., mitigating concernsabout the presumption against extraterritoriality. As NEPA is only a processstatute, including space environments are unlikely to hinder exploration or use ofspace while informing the public about the full environmental impacts of humanspace activities, consistent with NEPA’s original purpose.I expect this will be weaponized and used against Starlink immediately.Also 2nd author Monica Vidaurri is on the board of JustSpace Alliance, an anti-commercial space organization
The United States’ landmark environmental law, the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (“NEPA”), requires U.S. federal agencies to consider theenvironmental impacts of “major federal actions significantly affecting thequality of the human environment.” The major agencies involved in spaceactivities or regulation generally limit their environmental reviews of spaceactivities, with only some consideration of terrestrial and space environmentalimpacts. This review argues that NEPA and existing case law supports theproposition that the “human environment” includes the “outer spaceenvironment.” It reviews the historical role of space in human culture, emergingcommercial and scientific uses of space, and the potential impacts of NewSpaceactivities on both the terrestrial and space environments. By examining statutorylanguage and legislative intent, this review finds that current agency practicesare likely not compliant with NEPA, particularly as they relate to not consideringterrestrial environmental impacts from federally-authorized space activities.Current case law on NEPA extraterritoriality, particularly EDF v. Massey,further supports the application of NEPA to the space environment. U.S.spacecraft fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S., mitigating concernsabout the presumption against extraterritoriality. As NEPA is only a processstatute, including space environments are unlikely to hinder exploration or use ofspace while informing the public about the full environmental impacts of humanspace activities, consistent with NEPA’s original purpose.
Elon Musk was adamant.On a call last December with Ajit Pai, the Federal Communications Commission’s chairman at the time, Mr. Musk said that if the commission considered a proposal to begin the process of opening up a certain swath of wireless frequencies for ground-based 5G service, it would pose a threat to his Starlink satellite network, according to people familiar with the discussion.
The government of Rwanda has submitted to international regulators a plan to launch 327,320 satellites into 550-640-kilometer orbits broadcasting in both L- and S-band.The Rwandan constellation, named Cinnamon-217 and Cinnamon-937, is comprised of 27 orbital shells, with each shell except a single-plane equatorial shell made up of 12,970 satellites, bringing the total to 327,320 satellites, according to Rwandan submissions to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).The constellation will include inter-satellite links using radio frequencies.
Our new @IEEEAccess Access paper has been published. We model the #Engineering #Economics of #LowEarthOrbit #Broadband constellations, such as #SpaceX #Starlink, #OneWeb and #BlueOrigin #Kuiper. The #IEEE Access paper is here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6287639/9312710/09568932.pdf?tp=&arnumber=9568932&isnumber=9312710&ref=aHR0cHM6Ly9pZWVleHBsb3JlLmllZWUub3JnL2RvY3VtZW50Lzk1Njg5MzI/c291cmNlPWF1dGhvcmFsZXJ0
QuoteOur new @IEEEAccess Access paper has been published. We model the #Engineering #Economics of #LowEarthOrbit #Broadband constellations, such as #SpaceX #Starlink, #OneWeb and #BlueOrigin #Kuiper. The #IEEE Access paper is here: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ielx7/6287639/9312710/09568932.pdf?tp=&arnumber=9568932&isnumber=9312710&ref=aHR0cHM6Ly9pZWVleHBsb3JlLmllZWUub3JnL2RvY3VtZW50Lzk1Njg5MzI/c291cmNlPWF1dGhvcmFsZXJ0
The Federal Communications Commission this week urged a court to back the FCC's approval of SpaceX Starlink satellite launches against a lawsuit filed by Viasat and Dish.With oral arguments scheduled for December 3, final briefs were filed on Tuesday by the FCC, Viasat, Dish, and SpaceX. Judges at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit previously rejected Viasat's motion for a stay that would have halted SpaceX's ongoing launches of low-Earth-orbit (LEO) satellites pending the resolution of the lawsuit. Judges found that Viasat failed to show that it is likely to win its case alleging that the FCC improperly approved the satellite launches. Judges said at the time that Viasat did not meet "the stringent requirements for a stay pending court review" but granted a motion to expedite the appeal.
At this time Starlink IS Spacex, not even separated by a parent-subsidiary structure.
I realize that "a contract is a contract, but only among Ferengi " , but how does it work that Viasat is suing a Future launch provider? At this time Starlink IS Spacex, not even separated by a parent-subsidiary structure.Do we know or have knowledgeable guesses on the timing of the court's decision?Is the refusal of a stay prejudicial against the Viacom position? Is it a possible appeals basis?
