From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <david@lang.hm>
Received: from mail.lang.hm (045-059-245-186.biz.spectrum.com [45.59.245.186])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C7313CB37
 for <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:11:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from asgard.lang.hm (syslog [10.0.0.100])
 by mail.lang.hm (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8531C852E;
 Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 10:11:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard.lang.hm
To: Daniel AJ Sokolov <daniel@falco.ca>
cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
In-Reply-To: <007f1215-e15f-4aae-a7de-3958c0914e68@falco.ca>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.2403141009390.19343@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <CAEf-zrg81w2+kUyzN1-8Bz7=CnXZDXUd8Wrg8YRYQA6EFANsTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.2403131951070.20294@nftneq.ynat.uz>
 <007f1215-e15f-4aae-a7de-3958c0914e68@falco.ca>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Subject: Re: [Starlink] FCC Denies Starlink Low-Orbit Bid for Lower Latency
 (Mark Harris)
X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." <starlink.lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/options/starlink>,
 <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink>
List-Post: <mailto:starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net>
List-Help: <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink>,
 <mailto:starlink-request@lists.bufferbloat.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 17:11:36 -0000

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024, Daniel AJ Sokolov via Starlink wrote:

> On 3/13/24 19:55, David Lang via Starlink wrote:
>> this doesn't make sense to me. The ISS can go as low as 360km before 
>> they get a boost back to a higher orbit, but the starlink satellites 
>> they are denying will all be lower than that (and worst case, they can 
>> force SpaceX to pay for a few additional reboost missions over the next 
>> 6 years before they deorbit it)
>
> These satellites would be in the way of supply missions to/from ISS.

so does that mean that nothing can orbit lower than the ISS beacuse of a launch 
every few months may need to schedule?

>> but they would avoid the thousands of satellites going up and down 
>> through the ISS orbit range to get to their ~550km orbit/
>
> They don't linger there, so that's different.

so overlapping altitudes that don't linger are better than non-overlapping 
altitudes? that doesn't make sense to me.

David Lang