SpaceX spat with Viasat: Rival accused of abusing legislation to halt Elon's Starlink expansion
- Reference: 1623863712
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/06/16/spacex_viasat_legal_dispute/
- Source link:
Elon Musk's business said this in a response filed on Monday
[1]PDF
in an ongoing legal dispute with Viasat, Dish Network, and consulting firm The Balance Group. The trio are contesting SpaceX's recently given Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval to operate Starlink satellites at a lower altitude.In a ruling published late April, the FCC allowed SpaceX to [2]move 2,814 existing satellites from their current orbits of 1,100km to 1,300km to between 540km to 570km above Earth's surface. This would make its satellites more effective and improve coverage in rural areas, as well as in the polar regions.
[3]
Viasat has argued the move will increase the risk of collisions from wayward satellites and the increased proliferation of orbital debris. It claimed the approval process had been forced through, and further alleged that the FCC had failed in its obligation to review the approval under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
[4]Firefly Aerospace's Blue Ghost lunar lander set to ride a SpaceX Falcon 9 to the Moon
[5]Google Cloud and SpaceX buddy up to fling edgy data and cloud services via Starlink
[6]Meme crypto-coin literally going to the Moon, if Elon Musk is to believed, on DOGE-1 mission courtesy of SpaceX Falcon 9
[7]The Starship has landed. Latest SpaceX test comes back to Earth without igniting fireballs
Also on Monday, the Balance Group filed a supporting motion [8]for placing a stay on the FCC's order [PDF], pending a judicial review.
In the filing, it supported Viasat's concerns about potential radio frequency interference, as well as interference with astronomical research.
[9]
[10]
The NEPA legislation compels federal agencies to determine whether a proposal would have a "significant effect on the human environment." For efficiency, it allows agencies to identify actions that are unlikely to have an adverse effect, and waive any environmental investigation.
For its part, SpaceX has [11]accused [PDF] Viasat of attempting a "transparent bid to co-opt the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the procedure for extraordinary stay relief as weapons of commercial warfare."
[12]
"Viasat's newfound environmentalism is belied by its actions at every turn. Viasat failed to raise any environmental concerns in connection with any other satellite authorization, including SpaceX's authorization to operate Starlink satellites at a different altitude and its prior request," said SpaceX's counsel.
Also on Monday, the FCC [13]put forward its arguments for opposing Viasat's motion to stay [PDF], arguing SpaceX had mitigated the risk of orbital debris, pointing to the manoeuvrability of its satellites.
"SpaceX's orbital debris mitigation plan explained that the satellites are capable of maneuvering to avoid collisions, and that the lower altitude helps minimize debris by ensuring satellites more quickly descend into the atmosphere and are destroyed at the end of their useful lives," the agency wrote in its own legal filing.
[14]
It also highlighted design decisions made by SpaceX to ensure its Starlink satellites disintegrate upon re-entry, reducing the risk of human casualties "to zero." ®
Get our [15]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/06/16/spacex__opposition_to_stay_motion_dc_circuit.pdf
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/28/fcc_spacex/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YMp0f0QNtORAtxRBaCy8lwAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/21/firefly_blue_ghost/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/google_starlink/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/10/doge-1/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/06/spacex_starship_lands_without_exploding/
[8] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/06/16/resp_supporting_motion_to_stay.pdf
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMp0f0QNtORAtxRBaCy8lwAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMp0f0QNtORAtxRBaCy8lwAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/06/16/spacex__opposition_to_stay_motion_dc_circuit.pdf
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YMp0f0QNtORAtxRBaCy8lwAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://regmedia.co.uk/2021/06/16/final_opposition_to_viasat_stay_motion.pdf
[14] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YMp0f0QNtORAtxRBaCy8lwAAAEA&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[15] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Viasat
you'd think they could afford an actual SCIENTIST who would tell them that below 600km altitude orbits decay in relatively short time frame.
According to [1]NASA "Debris left in orbits below 370 miles (600 km) normally fall back to Earth within several years."
I'd say a collision at THAT altitude is much less dangerous "to the environment" than advertised...
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html
Re: Viasat
It depends how many bits end up there. If enough junk was out there, it could make other activities in that orbit problematic. The orbit is small, so if there was enough debris from collisions, other satellites in the area might have to be repositioned frequently to avoid hitting some of it. It's not a long-term risk because the junk will eventually deorbit, but something which makes other activities untenable could still be a risk. That said, I think Spacex has proven to have the ability to perform the required maneuvers, so they can probably avoid collisions if they're held responsible for any failures.
Re: Viasat
"That said, I think Spacex has proven to have the ability to perform the required maneuvers, so they can probably avoid collisions if they're held responsible for any failures."
But can they really reliably monitor such a vast fleet in real time? Or is a lot of the monitoring "AI", or Tesla "Autopilot" grade stuff?
The coat with armour plated brolly ----->
Re: Viasat
Given that they don't expect there to be any white lorries performing a turn in front of the satellite, I guess Autopilot will be fine.
Goes without saying
Of course the complaint filed by a rival is intending to weaponize the law for commercial reasons, and of course a company cares more about the environmental problems caused by their competitors than caused by someone unrelated or themselves (note: Viasat operates geosynchronous satellites, so the same complaints don't apply to them). These things are unsurprising and unimportant.
The only important thing is whether the allegations made by Viasat while attempting to set up roadblocks are true. Did Spacex/the FCC manage to circumvent the required environmental approvals? If you sue me because you don't like me and want to make my life difficult, but I actually did something illegal, then I'm still at fault and the suit is still valid.
Re: Goes without saying
Environmental regulations are now routinely used in the US to block development by competitors. It gums up schedules with endless reviews and legal challenges.
It doesn't actually do anything for the environment, of course.
Re: Goes without saying
"It doesn't actually do anything for the environment, of course."
[Citation needed]
Re: Goes without saying
If that's the case, the solution is to have them changed or removed as fits your/the people's/the politicians' attitude toward regulation. Not just to ignore them. If they were ignored or bypassed by either Spacex or the FCC, then that is a problem.
I think Elon should pull on his red boots, click his heels together, turn three times widdershins and shout "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome competitor?"
Hey. It's a cheap option. I don't think it is illegal. Something along that line reportedly worked for Henry II. And I doubt anyone outside a small circle of friends is really all that attached to Viasat and their lawyers. (To judge Viasat's popularity, read the comments at https://www.whistleout.com/Internet/Guides/viasat-internet-review-how-good-is-it)
Viasat has nothing to lose
Viasat has nothing to lose, and everything (including a few years respite) to gain.
If LEO-based ISPs manage to pull off their ambitious plans Viasat is (mostly doomed). Aside from the issue of space debris, I believe they have pointed to the visual impact of LEO-satellites. It will be interesting to see if the courts will go along with that as an environmental issue. If they do it may well have consequences for other areas like wind turbine farms. After all, they too negatively impact the visual environment.
I suspect that in the end various groups will rally around SpaceX for that reason and allow the satellites to ruin the view for astronomers - for the common good. After all, without ubiquitous access to Facebook humanity is doomed. I mean, without universal access to telemedicine, of course.
Viasat
The ones who pay Priti Patel £1000/hour?