LEO == low earth orbit

For anyone wondering

> What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity.

What if? It appears that we collectively need to decide what uses we prefer.

> Just to keep astronomers happy, which would be better off using space based telescopes anyway.

Alternatively, why seriously restrict the ability to engage in research just because some people want to be able to talk directly to a satellite from their cell phone?

The reality is that nobody is going to get everything they want out of this. Compromise is required, and compromise means that nobody is going to be entirely happy.

This is not "just to keep astronomers happy", because the science gleaned from astronomy benefits all of us, and relying solely on space-based telescopes is far from feasible.

For things like the Square Kilometre Array it's simply impossible to place them in space using current technology, and satellite constellations that leak too much unnecessary RF energy will destroy the investment we've made in them.

That also doesn't take into account things like space weather monitoring and forecasting, which also relies on highly sensitive distributed earth-based receivers.

Good regulation allows for both progress and an avoidance of a tragedy of the commons situation where unregulated satellites emit so much unnecessary RF energy that ground-based radio astronomy becomes impossible.

Then the world would likely get by just fine with ground based optic fibre to urban areas and along highways to remote area hubs with people in truly remote areas getting by just as they have done since homo sapians first banged rocks together.

> What if that regulation blocks progress like direct cell to satellite connectivity

Regulators don't "just" block things for shits and giggles.

They act because there is a need to do so; their acts formed by a consensus.

(I feel like I'm explaining this to a child).

E: VLO

Not disclosing this only really benefits them if it's a viable means of detection and they expect to use it in anger one day.

(viable in the sense that it's no use if it only works when a stealth plane blocks line of sight between ground detector and satellite)

By disclosing it, they reduced confidence in the military of multiple adversaries in the public eye and potentially caused them to spend to money to investigate/fix.

What?

NO. A tax is a bad way to regulate any system in the long run. Ideally i would like all telescopes be shifted to outer space. if spacex or its competitor created a orbital satellite network and charged a monthly / yearly fee to get a feed of data from the cost / dollar would far exceed anything available today. tax going to govt is a place for inovation to die.

Who will get the tax money?

The boundary follows the nautical border, beyond that is the air defense identification zone which is where the military warn planes to identify themselves before they reach the border. Generally speaking military planes (if we ignore geopolitics and focus purely on aviation) is only in technical violation if they cross the actual boundary, which when the vehicle becomes covered by the laws of the country which airspace they are in and thus can suffer kinetic countermeasures even in peacetime. The air defence zone is based more on politics rather than international/treaty legality which is why air forces constantly fly their vehicles up to the edge of adversary states to test response times. Don't try that as a civilian.

On a side note, ignore sensationalized media reporting about air forces violating air spaces. This is something every air force worth their salt does. It's only a real enforceable violation if they are past the border and in aviation altitudes (see my explanation below about spy planes) e.g. the balloon incident which was genuinely weird.

Above the Karman line it's no longer considered aviation and is generally governed more by international treaties and geopolitics (that are distinct and separate from civilian/general aviation regulations). Generally you can do whatever the fuck you want in space so long as you are not putting up kinetic weapons, creating lots of debris, or interfering with the trajectories of other countries' satellites. It's very much a wild west and the further you go the wilder it gets. That's why there's a concerted effort to replace the Outer Space Treaty (see the policy side of the Artemis Project for example) when it comes to space colonization (current laws aren't compatible with colonization, exercise for the reader to find out why). Generally speaking when you get high enough, the number of countries that has the capabilities to deny you airspace access can be counted on two hands, mostly the Security Council states and similarly advanced countries. There's a fuzzy area around the Karman line where it's generally too high for most conventional missiles to reach which is where the interesting spy plane missions get flown (and partially why countries like to build the space shuttle style space skimming vehicles). Laws only apply when you can enforce it, and anything space related gets expensive real fast. Even North Korea doesn't shake the boat too much when it comes to putting things into space.

Too bad there isn't a tool to disable the person with the Flipper.

Astronomers don’t own frequency exclusively. I think we’ll be fine. Same as we were fine with every other thing that seemed like it was going to destroy the world.

let's see if this Starlink thread will go were the others went, with HN commenters suggesting all astronomy moves to space because having Internet everywhere you go is too important

It revolutionised Australia fairly quickly

Almost every campsite has dozens at this point

My sister uses it out in the bush, very expensive but works extremely well

https://www.starlink.com/roam

Starlink Mini. Fits in a backpack. Get a battery and bam. Just roam.