Amazon says Elon Musk is launching ‘dangerous’ Starlink satellites that could cause ‘collisions in space’
‘It does not serve the public to hamstring Starlink today for an Amazon satellite system that is at best several years away from operation,’ Musk responded on Twitter
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Amazon are currently locked in a battle over their satellite projects.
Both companies are entering the satellite broadband market. SpaceX has been developing its Starlink programme, while Amazon will launch 3000 satellites under ‘Project Kuiper’.
While SpaceX has already launched more than 800 satellites in orbit for service in the US, Canada, and the UK, Amazon has yet to start producing its own satellites.
SpaceX recently asked US regulators to allow it to operate its satellites at a lower altitude than it originally intended, something which Amazon has disputed – arguing that the change would interfere with other satellites, CNBC reports.
David Goldman, SpaceX’s director, reportedly spoke with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to discuss its proposal, apparently highlighting that Amazon has had “30 meetings to oppose SpaceX” but “no meetings to authorize its own system,” and argued that Amazon is attempting “to stifle competition.”
At the end of last year, Amazon asked the FCC to limit SpaceX’s satellites to a minimum altitude of 580 kilometers until it could “fully evaluates the detailed record on the significant interference concerns”.
Amazon corporate counsel Mariah Dodson Shuman reportedly wrote in a letter to the FCC that “SpaceX has indicated that it is capable of operating its system without exceeding 580 km and has not demonstrated why such a condition should not be effective immediately”.
However, Mr Musk shot back at Amazon in a tweet: “It does not serve the public to hamstring Starlink today for an Amazon satellite system that is at best several years away from operation,” the CEO said.
In response, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that SpaceX’s plans were anticompetitive and would be worse for consumers.
“The facts are simple. We designed the Kuiper System to avoid interference with Starlink, and now SpaceX wants to change the design of its system. Those changes not only create a more dangerous environment for collisions in space, but they also increase radio interference for customers”, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC.
“Despite what SpaceX posts on Twitter, it is SpaceX’s proposed changes that would hamstring competition among satellite systems. It is clearly in SpaceX’s interest to smother competition in the cradle if they can, but it is certainly not in the public’s interest,” an Amazon spokesperson said.
Neither SpaceX nor Amazon responded to a request for comment from The Independent before time of publication.
Amazon is not the only organisation with concerns about the altitude of SpaceX’s satellites.
In August 2020, report by the Satellite Constellations 1 (Satcon1) workshop found that that constellations of bright satellites like SpaceX’s will fundamentally change ground-based optical and infrared astronomy.
“We find that the worst-case constellation designs prove extremely impactful to the most severely affected science programs,” stated the report.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments