My understanding is that after the interference by Elon in the war with Russia he agreed to hand off control to the some branch of the U.S. military, though I have no confirmation or details.
Also, have there been talks about the oversaturation of satellites in low Earth orbit (the area in which Starlink satellites operate) and how that satellite traffic will be managed?
It’s certainly a concern, which is why the Chinese are launching their own units just to take up space. As far as I can tell, Starlink is launching as many satellites as they can to reach the 12,000 unit threshold that’s they’re currently authorized to reach. Given SpaceX’s application to have 30k units up there, it’s likely that they are trying to corner as much of the market as possible.
I was thinking about it more like in an air traffic control sense. So obviously when airplanes became more popular for commercial use, a way to direct air traffic was necessary so planes didn't crash into each other, etc.. I was wondering if the same concept could be applied to satellites, especially if the Chinese and Starlink plan on adding more satellites to the Low Earth orbit region?
There's yet to be an international treaty on the matter, and with the way things are going, it seems unlikely that the world could reach such an agreement. My guess is that it will instead be an area of increased competition: the Boston Consulting Group projects the industry will be worth as much as $45 billion by 2030, so there's definitely an impetus. However, local regulators will likely create new legislation on the matter and various existing agreements such as the EU's GDPR will need to be taken into account. Additionally, the launch and landing of spacecraft is highly regulated and these regulations apply to SpaceX as much as they do any government-owned entity.
Out of curiosity, who has jurisdiction to make the types of decisions for who has access to Starlink and who doesn't? Since Starlink is run by a private company, could they (in theory) be sanctioned if they don't take more active steps to prevent their terminals from falling into the hands of bad actors?
SpaceX are the ones calling the shots, but as a US corporation, they are bound by US laws and conventions. With sanctions on countries like Iran and Russia, and an arms embargo on China, they won’t be offering service in those countries. SpaceX appears to be very sensitive to issues of misuse, as evidenced by Musk’s many statements on the matter. My guess is that they walk a very fine line on these matters and do not want to run afoul of political or regulatory institutions. If they are in any way deemed a liability by the powers that be, they risk the full nationalization of the program. This is why it’s in their best interest to play by the rules as much as possible. However, it’s very difficult to keep their technology out of the hands of bad actors, especially when it has so many commercial applications.
My understanding is that after the interference by Elon in the war with Russia he agreed to hand off control to the some branch of the U.S. military, though I have no confirmation or details.
According to Isaacson, if he receives a request from top White House officials, he will do as instructed.
The double edged sword is technology. Great read. Thank you.
Also, have there been talks about the oversaturation of satellites in low Earth orbit (the area in which Starlink satellites operate) and how that satellite traffic will be managed?
It’s certainly a concern, which is why the Chinese are launching their own units just to take up space. As far as I can tell, Starlink is launching as many satellites as they can to reach the 12,000 unit threshold that’s they’re currently authorized to reach. Given SpaceX’s application to have 30k units up there, it’s likely that they are trying to corner as much of the market as possible.
I was thinking about it more like in an air traffic control sense. So obviously when airplanes became more popular for commercial use, a way to direct air traffic was necessary so planes didn't crash into each other, etc.. I was wondering if the same concept could be applied to satellites, especially if the Chinese and Starlink plan on adding more satellites to the Low Earth orbit region?
There's yet to be an international treaty on the matter, and with the way things are going, it seems unlikely that the world could reach such an agreement. My guess is that it will instead be an area of increased competition: the Boston Consulting Group projects the industry will be worth as much as $45 billion by 2030, so there's definitely an impetus. However, local regulators will likely create new legislation on the matter and various existing agreements such as the EU's GDPR will need to be taken into account. Additionally, the launch and landing of spacecraft is highly regulated and these regulations apply to SpaceX as much as they do any government-owned entity.
It's going to be a ubiquitous service, like cell phones.
Out of curiosity, who has jurisdiction to make the types of decisions for who has access to Starlink and who doesn't? Since Starlink is run by a private company, could they (in theory) be sanctioned if they don't take more active steps to prevent their terminals from falling into the hands of bad actors?
SpaceX are the ones calling the shots, but as a US corporation, they are bound by US laws and conventions. With sanctions on countries like Iran and Russia, and an arms embargo on China, they won’t be offering service in those countries. SpaceX appears to be very sensitive to issues of misuse, as evidenced by Musk’s many statements on the matter. My guess is that they walk a very fine line on these matters and do not want to run afoul of political or regulatory institutions. If they are in any way deemed a liability by the powers that be, they risk the full nationalization of the program. This is why it’s in their best interest to play by the rules as much as possible. However, it’s very difficult to keep their technology out of the hands of bad actors, especially when it has so many commercial applications.