Comment by tekla | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tekla | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Starlink reportedly argued that once they can properly launch Starship, they can surely hit the required speeds.

Read the article you are referencing

> To justify its motivated reasoning, the majority points to delays in the development of SpaceX’s Starship launch platform—the largest, most powerful rocket ever built—as evidence that SpaceX would be unable to launch enough Starlink satellites to meet its 2025 commitments. The trouble with this argument is that SpaceX never indicated that it was relying on the Starship platform to meet its RDOF obligations, and in fact it repeatedly stated that it was not. Undeterred by the facts, the Commission now resorts to twisting SpaceX’s words. For example, SpaceX said in a letter to the Commission that it had “reached a point in the development of its Starship launch vehicle and Gen2 satellites [such] that it can concentrate solely on Configuration 1 and no longer pursue Configuration 2” (emphasis added). Configuration 1 involves launching with Starship, and Configuration 2 involves launching with Falcon 9. Nothing in this sentence suggests that SpaceX needed Starship to launch Gen2 satellites, but that’s exactly the interpretation that the majority now relies on

Falcon 9 is launching Starlink V2 at 22 per launch regularly for a while now

They are just using what SpaceX/Starlink has said in the past[1].

>SpaceX asked the FCC to expedite approval now that it has settled on the Starship-launched configuration.

Regardless, to reach those obligatory speeds by 2025 they would need to launch an insane amount of satellites with no failures. If the FCC doesn't think they can do that, they don't get funding.

1. https://spacenews.com/spacex-goes-all-in-on-starship-configu...

Then why decide now that SpaceX won't get the money? Does another company get the contract? Otherwise would have assumed to simply check at/after the delivery date...

They didn't decide now. The program was created as a two step process initially. Starlink succeeded in the first round, but was denied in the second, more in depth, review that lead to the rejection. This was basically an appeal of that rejection.

The second round was designed to eliminate providers who didn't seem able to deliver on their promises even with the subsidies. It was made to prevent a situation where either party (but mostly the US Gov and tax payers by extension) was on the hook for unsuccessful delivery.

I'm not sure what happens with the funds that would have gone to Starlink.

They decided a while ago (2022) that Starlink wouldn't get the RDOF grant. This was essentially an appeal to see if the decision would be reversed, and they upheld the original decision not to fund Starlink. It's not a check after deployment thing, it's a "check if they actually can deploy in the first place" situation.

There are two rounds of funding so it's possible unspent funds from the first round may roll over to fund the second round.

Because it wouldn’t do much good to decide once all the money is spent.

There are processes in place to gauge progress and viability along the way before handing over the bags with money.

SpaceX is hardly the only one who didn’t end up getting their share of the subsidies, it’s just the biggest with a very vocal person at the helm.

F9 launches of v2 were only announced after the FCC denied the award last year, this is in the primary doc

Reply on news.ycombinator.com