FCC’s Approval of SpaceX’s Starlink Mega Constellation May Have Been Unlawful

"“Astronomers are having these issues [and think] there’s nothing they can do legally,” says the paper’s author Ramon Ryan, a second-year law student at Vanderbilt University."

Emphasis mine. And that's their lead-off quote. The sense I get from the other quotes in the article is that the people in question probably really did say that, but that they probably don't believe this is a viable legal avenue either, the journalist is just selectively quoting the "But I suppose with the right combination of unlikely events it could be a possible legal avenue" hedging they made. But I admit that's a personal impression of mine, not something I can prove. I'm just inferring it based on the tepidness of the other quotes.

However, I don't blame a student for putting out a paper. I blame the Scientific American for constructing such a thinly-based article, because the real reason is that they want the controversy stirred up, or it's what they personally wanted to say even though the factual basis isn't really there to support it. This sort of crap is why journalists aren't trusted. Story-first, evidence later; it's like they're the equal and opposite reaction to scientists existing in the world.

And I'm curious how much of cable ISPs and totalitarian governments lobby is behind the anti-Starlink hype.

What's costly in California isn't the EIR, but the subsequent lawsuits. Boring Company got an exemption in Hawthorne because they were tunneling under a relatively poor neighborhood and nobody showed up at the public hearings to challenge the exemption. Poor people have neither the expertise, resources, nor inclination to game the system, at least not unless there's a local community activist.

But rich people do, and that's what happened with the Dodger Stadium project: NIMBYs arrived and the city immediately caved. So now Boring Company is doing the EIR. But, again, EIRs are easy. It's exceptional that something major is found, like an endangered species; usually it's simple, basic stuff; the kind of stuff originally intended to be remediated with the reports. There's a whole industry of professionals that come out, run tests, and write it up with little friction. But under California's CEQA, NIMBYs can challenge it endlessly in the courts without repercussions. It's a complete absurdity and has nothing to do with environmental impacts. But the law can't be changed because the rich and powerful know full well that its function is to permit neighborhoods and special interests to block projects, and they won't give that up.

Boring Company will never get an exemption where an exemption would truly matter.

> Finding a way to avoid red tape seems like a massive cost and time saving.

No doubt! Just ask Boeing. Except don't get caught avoiding the ones that keep people alive and healthy.

Some animals navigate using stars: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805938/

Starlink could potentially disrupt that. Most likely it will not, but who knows.

One could also argue that satellites that do not fully burn in atmosphere produce waste.

From legal perspective, I guess it's hard to argue that there is no impact, if you do not asses the impact.

Overall, I don't think there is not much cause for concern for non-human activities. And even for humans it's about astronomy and moving dots on night sky outside urban areas.

Yes, it's extremely simple. Some people will grasp at anything to criticize Musk's enterprises. They really hate him.

Not only internet, but Starlink funds Starship and gives it enough payload to start amortizing the rockets. With Starship launch prices at scale, astronomers can have all sorts of space telescopes at their disposal, and it won't cost much.

This isn't only because launch will be cheaper. Space hardware is expensive mostly because it has to be both durable and lightweight. If launch is cheap, it's fine for the hardware to be heavy, and if it breaks then it doesn't cost much to replace it.

Beyond astronomy, Starlink revenue and Starship are the keys to becoming a real space-faring society.

Elon does not like to spend much on marketing/ads.

Doesn't work that easily, unless SpaceX also moves to another country.

All planes can land safely at their MTOW. However, doing so may cause damage that needs repair before a subsequent flight. It also means you need more runway, which can limit your options or reduce safety margins.

The reason it isn't that way is because by requiring MLW==MTW, you singlehandedly neutered any attempt at fuel efficiency or range, because now you've got a plane that's carrying around an undercarriage heavy enough to land on a max fuel load all the time. So now, you're burning more gas all the time.

Generally, you design systems around everything working, while leaving yourself enough room to keep your options open should anything go wrong.

Until recently, that was rather infrequent.

So every single flight should cut their capacity by hundred thousand pounds, because there's a <0.001% chance it need to dump fuel?

Suppose we impose this rule. Now we will need to make up for the lost capacity by increasing the number of flights. How can that be good for the environment?

Planes can and do land overweight. It's avoided because it risks damage and necessitates an inspection in any case. So I don't think it's an issue that needs to be addressed in general. DL89 is certainly odd. It will be investigated and addressed if necessary.