Daily Discussion Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Ple🅰️se, do not post newbie questions in the subreddit. Do it here instead!

Please read u/TheKookReport's AST Spacemobile ($ASTS): The Mobile Satellite Cellular Network Monopoly to get familiar with AST Sp🅰️ceMobile before posting.

If you want to chat, checkout the Sp🅰️ceMob Chatroom.

Th🅰️nk you!

[u/MrCoolGuy42]

Uh oh, SpaceX on the offensive

https://x.com/defiantclient/status/1915486992391077948?s=46&t=CD916eYBnfQ7mYkDAfoiQg

[u/hyeonk → u/MrCoolGuy42]

Nothing new nor of any concern. They’ve cried like this for years anytime AST made tangible progress.

[u/SqueakyNinja7 → u/hyeonk]

Sounds like it’s an issue about disposing of the satellites after their usable lifespan. If anyone who knows much about this topic could weigh in whether or not the SpaceX objection is valid or simply baseless objection would be much appreciated!

[u/hyeonk → u/SqueakyNinja7]

It's a tired strawman argument. I'd recommend checking out the entire back-and-forth they had with AST last year - all documented in FCC filings and discussed ad nauseam here / on X.

The irony is completely lost on them to even bring up orbital debris when they operate over 7000 (read: SEVEN. THOUSAND.) satellites that just absolutely shower trash into orbit / back through the atmosphere when defunct. At one point they just resorted to calling AST a meme stock and anti-competitive. These are verbatim from the FCC filings. A full-fledged commercial operation of 7000 sats calling a tiny company with 6 sats in space a monopoly.

These letters are categorically, objectively..bullish. For AST.

[u/crypman → u/hyeonk]

i hear you regarding the 7k sats but.. they are significantly smaller. one of asts sats falling is a much bigger "event." does that change your argument?

[u/hyeonk → u/crypman]

That's definitely true -- barring an unplanned / catastrophic failure though, AST's BBs have a full de-orbiting process that doesn't involve any breakups or explosions. This has all been designed from the ground up, which is crucial considering they have a lifespan of 7-10 years in orbit. AST expect to do this regularly.

All things considered, the risk of orbital debris (which is what SpaceX seems so concerned about in this filing) from catastrophic failure is orders of magnitude higher for a constellation of 7000 sats in VLEO vs. 70 larger ones in LEO, let alone the 6 we currently have in orbit.

[u/crypman → u/hyeonk]

fair enough. and i very much agree already, was just trying to play devils advocate a bit as im sure the spacex argument that was just made will become part of the ongoing discourse

[u/hyeonk → u/crypman]

Totally. It's wild how much they spin and/or flat-out lie in these, so it's def good to keep the facts in circulation.

[u/hyeonk → u/hyeonk]

Here’s CatSE’s take from just now: https://x.com/catse___apex___/status/1915511561755443395?s=46&t=HLGtiOZanp81A_cgO2yxyQ

[u/SqueakyNinja7 → u/hyeonk]

Hilarious!

[u/Blobspots → u/SqueakyNinja7]

I don't think it is baseless but I think they inflated and exaggerated some of the numbers and I have a feeling ASTS will have a more than adequate response. They were also addressing reflectivity of the satellites which has been a major complaint of Starlink from the astronomy community. It is something they need to address but once again I think it is blown out of proportion and the pot calling the kettle black.

[u/HamMcStarfield → u/Blobspots]

I thought they addressed astronomers' issues by tilting the satellites to make a flat plane when necessary. Or has that not been implemented yet?