5 ms·
1. That's not true. 2. It's not "at will" if you actually read the article you're commenting under you'd see it is about them _applying for a license_ to do so
by tticvs 2mo ago
1. That's not true.
2. It's not "at will" if you actually read the article you're commenting under you'd see it is about them _applying for a license_ to do something.
- taotau 2mo agoTaken literally you are technically correct, but... 1. Space is big, but LEO is not that big and if a single company clutters it enough, other organisations might start bumping into issues like 'if i don't get sign off from starlink corp, i might hit one of their satelites on the way up and my insurance wont cover that so I cant afford to launch given the risks of being sued by elon'. 2. Applying for a licence in this context, mostly means greasing the right palms (preferably the pudgy bruised ones).
- tticvs 2mo agoIt introduces no issues for space travel. And what exactly do you want to happen here? LEO to stay empty because no one else is able to fill it and for spacex to not to try to expand because the regulatory process isn't perfect according to your standards?
- sevenzero 2mo ago[dead]
- SirHackalot 2mo agoYes.