In opposition to @SpaceX's request to lower altitude of all #Starlink orbital planes @amazon argues in @FCC letter SpaceX should inform public about percentage of sats working nominally, warns sats will intersect with one another & those of #ProjectKuiper:
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2309596

In response to @amazon's concerns the @FCC has indeed requested @SpaceX to reassess collision risk for the lower altitudes and disclose how many #Starlink satellites have already lost maneuver capabilities at or above injection altitude: https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2320641
@planet4589 @b0yle

Correction: Remarkably @SpaceX is supposed to disclose only how many sats have lost maneuver capabilites ABOVE injection altitiude. Given the growing risk of falling sats killing people ( https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/the-odds-that-one-of-spacexs-internet-satellites-will-hit-someone) the @FCC should also care about those failing AT injection altitiude

@SpaceX responds to @FCC, admits that 12 #Starlink sats have lost maneuverability ABOVE injection altitude, says it has begun coordination with operators licensed in the 2016/2017 NGSO processing rounds, i.e. not with @amazon #ProjectKuiper who complained.
https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=2346559

The most ridiculous part of @SpaceX's response to the @FCC is where they claim to be "the industry leader in collision avoidance mitigation" when in fact they almost destroyed @esa's € 300m #Aeolus satellite by their gross negligence. What @hkrag may say? https://spacenews.com/esa-spacecraft-dodges-potential-collision-with-starlink-satellite/

Unsurprisingly, in a phone call with the @FCC on 20 May @amazon has "restated [its] concerns with the space safety risks posed by the recent license modification proposed by @SpaceX, which have not been adequately addressed [in their recent response posted above in this thread]".