I was thinking more along the line of the new rule giving another commercial advantage to SpaceX. Starlink will be effected, their satellites already deorbit faster than 5 years. But many other satellite operators will have to launch more frequently, and SpaceX is positioned to meet that growing demand.

I don't really see it as "giving" a commercial advantage to anyone if the new rule's purpose is to prevent something harmful and someone happens to benefit because they're already not doing that harmful thing.

In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages and that levelling the playing field somehow would be useful; allowing companies to grow too powerful does cause problems, and I don't think there's a moral requirement for regulators to be "fair" when dealing with corporations. They are not humans.

The need for that sort of intervention should not keep us from instating otherwise beneficial rules, though.

> In my view it's really a separate issue if SpaceX has too many advantages

That's not what I was saying. I was offering an observation, not a critique. I think this new rule is good.

Oh, I didn't really read it as a critique; mostly just the phrasing of "giving another commercial advantage" made me want to comment since it can be read as if that's the (or even just a) purpose of the rule.

> But many other satellite operators will have to launch more frequently, and SpaceX is positioned to meet that growing demand.

Read the article. It's about deorbiting after mission is finished.

If you have enough fuel on board you're free to keep your satellite for 50 years on the orbit. You just have to deorbit it within 5 after you stopped using it.