Since this seems to be the time for stories about Musk, here's one from my Starlink profile about SpaceX's finances that (at least so far) has remained unreported, despite most of the information being readily available... 1/

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1848368621069775009

Back in April 2023, Musk announced publicly that SpaceX does "not anticipate needing to raise funding" contradicting previous reports about a new multi-billion dollar round with Saudi and UAE investors cnbc.com/2023/04/29/elo… theinformation.com/articles/space…

This is a good example of how the #cluelesscult buys into and promotes technical gobbledygook without understanding anything about physics or regulation. The question is whether the people putting out this nonsense are equally clueless or being deliberately deceptive

https://twitter.com/Tim_X94/status/1824935072308646141

First things first. Most of this thread talks about out of *coverage* interference when Starlink's request for waiver is about out of BAND emissions. That should be an obvious hint that something's wrong, but not if you know nothing about physics #cluelesscult

Seems Elon will be doing some rage-firing shortly. First to go will be whichever poor engineer forgot to upsize the reaction wheels on the Gen2 mini sats, causing them all to be lost due to lack of stability (1/n)

https://twitter.com/TMFAssociates/status/1636436007837941770?s=20

But that's not the only problem: Starlink is running way behind the Q1 business plan, so not surprisingly Jonathan Hofeller was far from his usual ebullient self at Sat 2023 as he presumably starts to worry about his job (2/n)

Quick summary of TMUS/SpaceX announcement: proposed text/voice service is copycat of ASTS plan, i.e. using cellular spectrum. FCC has dithered for over 2 years about whether to permit that non-conforming use, to date all we have is an experimental authorization for 1 sat (1/n) TMUS said it will use nationwide PCS spectrum: that means G block (1910-1915MHz UL/1990-95MHz DL). That wasn't part of SpaceX's July 2022 Gen2 modification application, implying any approval there will be even further delayed (2/n)

Admitting that Starlink V1 will never make a profit or have capacity to serve millions of users is quite a statement. Saying V2 is only feasible with Starship contradicts their own August submission to the FCC (and arguments since) which had two alternative launch strategies

https://twitter.com/space_explored/status/1465497602242269184

I can’t see how the FCC can now allow Starlink to proceed with the V2 application without a revision to specify a single constellation design/launch plan. And without a rapid FAA approval for Starship launches at Boca Chica, how does Starlink move forward with V2?

In answer to this question, a few thoughts on direct-to-handset services. There are two issues to consider: 1) what services will be provided and 2) where the spectrum will come from. (1/n)

https://twitter.com/aviator_sd/status/1416542079392485376

On the first issue, it’s clear that closing the link for low bandwidth messaging direct to a smartphone is technically feasible, since SPOT and inReach already offer two-way text messaging to small handheld devices using the Globalstar & Iridium constellations respectively (2/n)

What is interesting in looking at the bidding patterns is that if Verizon had been prepared to take 100-120MHz instead of 140-160MHz, the auction could have been completed with total bids of only $40B-$50B

https://twitter.com/mikeddano/status/1364689984494604293

And C&C put down a deposit of $100M but then never made a single bid. A big bluff by the cable companies. Meanwhile Ergen bid for large amounts of spectrum in top markets to push up the price until round 25