upvote
It was never "legal" but it wasn't specifically illegal either.

Space-based businesses are hoping to grandfather themselves in once laws are established about the use of space, and betting that by then whatever service they offer will be seen as indispensable.

reply
I'm sometimes baffled how people's knee jerk reaction is to think how to ban this. And yet those same people complain about their parents that claimed that Rock'n'Roll or DnD should be banned because it's satanic.

This is literally the coolest thing we as a species achieved that doesn't serve self-preservation purposes.

reply
> This is literally the coolest thing we as a species achieved that doesn't serve self-preservation purposes.

couldn't be more wrong

reply
Problem is this capability is concentrated in the hands of

1. A private company.

2. Of a single country with inconsistent leaders.

I’d be less anxious if Europe had this capability instead.

reply
You will be fine. China will have this capability soon.
reply
Europe isn't the sort of place that would develop this capability
reply
France has Eutelsat: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutelsat>.

Germany had SES/Astra: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SES_Astra>.

The EU as a whole as the Galileo satnav / GPS project: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation_...>.

There are numerous other EU satellite comms providers, though most are aimed at commercial/broadcast services. That's a departure point for satellite-phone or satellite-internet, however.

Europe can and has developed similar and/or precursor capabilities.

reply
The EU can technically do it but they won’t. Starlink dwarfs all the services you mentioned. The EU doesn’t even believe in air conditioning much less making a robust satellite network
reply
I don't like that either, but nothing's stopping others from following the same path and achieving the same capabilities, other than their own inability or refusal to do what's already been done. It's been over a decade since Falcon 9's first successful landing and we're only recently starting to see similar feats from others.
reply
Except the space in these orbits is finite and a collision at say 520 km requires quick action or the entire fleet in that orbit will eventually be destroyed.

https://conference.sdo.esoc.esa.int/proceedings/sdc9/paper/3...

reply
deleted
reply
There’s a lot of space in space. This is not to scale.
reply
There's a lot of space in air, and yet we have multiple midair collisions every year.
reply
In the last ten years we have one (1) accidental satellite collision. In 2021 when a Chinese spy satellite in a 788km orbit collided with an old rocket stage from the 90s. There was also that Indian anti-satellite weapon hitting a microsat in 2019, but that was very much intentional (and much condemned because of all the fragments it caused)

In the decade before that (so 2006-2015) we had four accidental collisions and two anti-satellite tests (China and US)

Those are not frequent events. And if you attribute any statistical significance to them, it seems we are getting much better at avoiding collisions

reply
Surface of a sphere (spheroid) is the square of the diameter. Planes fly at ~10kms, satellites at orders of magnitude higher.
reply
Aircraft have both anticollision detection systems and maneuverability often lacking in satellites.
reply
However, the Earth’s own radius dwarfs the height of LEO, so they’re actually roughly the same.

There are other reasons we don’t currently experience major problems with collisions in space, and why airplanes sometimes do, but it is not this.

reply
Respectfully disagree as you're comparing the surface to the size of the object, so it definitely matters.

Here's some math:

Average Earth diameter: 12742kms + 10km Average airplane surface area = 500m2 12752^2*pi = 510,865,389km2 Surface flight/plane = 1021730 planes

Starlink orbit height = ~500km Surface at orbit = ~551,712,377 so ~8% increase (which is non-negligible) Average Starlink satellite surface area = ~7m2 Surface LEO/satelite = 78816053 satellites (77x compared to airplanes)

Daily flights 50k-100k. Total number of satellites <20k.

And this is only for Starlink LEO. If you go for higher orbits the surface grows substantially. Also satellites have predictable paths, altitudes, airplanes maneuver and turn, gain altitude/lose altitude. They gather around points (airfields) etc...

reply
I would argue that 8% is absolutely negligible; however one thing that isn't is that airspace is a narrow band vertically (12 km? Not sure exactly), while LEO is about 800 km thick (from about 200 km, because the Kármán line isn't good enough, to about 1000 km).

Conversely:

> Daily flights 50k-100k. Total number of satellites <20k.

Those 20k satellites orbit roughly every 95 minutes, so they're doing ~15 orbits per day, and even the longest flights from conventional aircraft are about half that distance, so by distance each satellite in LEO is doing strictly more than the equivalent of 30 flights per day each.

Research I'm doing for a blog post has shown me that the exact position of a satellite is surprisingly variable compared to what you'd reasonably expect from a "Newtonian spherical Earth with a perfect vacuum" approximation of the orbits, enough so that it makes sense to treat 1 km as the "collision avoidance manoeuvres needed" threshold.

reply
Airplanes are much more likely to collide, but they don't dump hyperspeed shrapnel into the airspace that persists for months or years when they do. It makes sense to be extremely paranoid about satellite collisions.
reply
I believe the second half of your comment is exactly what I was getting at.
reply
Yes, I agree! But a 10% increase in surface area of LEO isn't small when compared to the size of the satellite, taking into account how the surface area at 10km compares to airplanes.
reply
10% is an outrageously large change in a normal loan interest rate and an irrelevant change when comparing the weight of a paper plane to a real one. Keeping in mind another factor in your comparison was 7700%, I'm inclined to agree the 10% is negligible in context. It's fun to think about though.
reply
But 10% is 50 million square kilometers. If we project this surface area to a theoretical planet with a diameter of 2000kms this planet alone would support 2000+ Starlink satellites in LEO. This is again not negligible.
reply
There are all sorts of such scenarios beyond the one being discussed where it's a relevant amount. This is true of most any measure or metric and why the context that we're talking about the skies of Earth compared to the LEO of Earth is key. Once you remove that context and start comparing against other things you can any difference insignificant or critically massive by choice.
reply
deleted
reply
We have very few midair collisions every year and they almost all happen near the airports.
reply
That is not how orbital mechanics work.
reply
US runs the show. Anything is possible.
reply
If that was true China wouldn’t be able to launch as much as they have done
reply
US will allow you to play in their playground up to a certain point. China’s experiments wont result in a threat.
reply
Meanwhile: Is this true?

'Secret military documents from clandestine forums between Russia and China have revealed a possible joint strategic plan to disable Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network alongside a deep weapons development partnership spanning hypersonic missile defense and autonomous drones, The Insider reported on July 9.'

https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/09/russia-and-china-discus...

reply
Why would it be illegal? There are virtually zero drawbacks and huge advantages to these satellites. They are not rendered to scale either, in reality they are minuscule compared to the amount of available space. There’s room for millions more spacecraft.
reply
I think it's fair to classify the advantages as "modest" not "huge." Yes, it's cool that sailboats in the middle of the Pacific can get Internet, but the vast majority of Internet users are still connected via fiber or copper. And, arguably, the existence of Starlink could enable governments to cease the rollout of terrestrial Internet, which is a modest drawback to the technology.

I've also seen reports that, as the satellites become overburdened, speeds are pretty variable. Again, not saying it's a net negative, but I just don't think there are "huge advantages" to Starlink.

reply
As someone who worked and briefly lived in subsaharan Africa, I will say that the advantages are huge. Bandwidth alone isn't even the whole story - latency really matters too, another area where Starlink is super helpful compared to say, trying to get fiber punched in west from the southeastern parts of Africa. I have not yet mentioned the benefits of state actors not being able to cut your fiber at sea where nobody can see them.
reply
Fantastic now you can browse TikTok in the middle of the desert.
reply
This is a pretty uncharitable take. Every largish construction company in the country uses StarLink for their many projects where Internet isn't available. Yknow, actually building the country out. It's a game changer.
reply
Huge advantages maybe in the future. Not now.

I’m thinking buying a camper van, and just travel through the world. Except I need internet, everywhere.

There are no such options. Starlink is the best, but there are two main problems with it:

- In the countries where it would be the most useful, it’s not allowed to be used (Garmin has the same problem with their Fenix 8 Pro, their availability maps are a joke) - You need to go back to your “home” country every other month (there is a non legal, thus risky, option to circumvent this for now)

So, that huge advantage is not here yet at all.

reply
There are huge military advantages right now. The US military will not willingly give up starlink, and they can use it in every country without permission.
reply
What does it give to the military, what they haven’t had already? Better round trip time?
reply
I’m more familiar with how Starlink compares to existing publicly-available satellite internet options. Here are some brief points:

- data throughput orders of magnitude higher,

- the ability to use smaller and more portable antennas (e.g. ~100 Mbps with something the size of a textbook, currently ~2 Mbps and soon ~10s Mbps with your normal mobile phone),

- order of magnitude lower latency compared to GSO satellites.

Other constellations like Iridium dedicate large portions to use by government(s?), too, but simply do not have the throughput or total bandwidth that Starlink does. Your speeds there, on the expensive business plans that offer it, are measured in the low Kbps.

reply
Weight, Cost, bandwidth, polar availablity.

In Guam it means 10Gbps without Fiber.

reply