Your deceptive edits are...deceptive. The “it might work” was preceded with a hypothetical condition and then followed with the real condition. It wasn't “its theoretically impossible but it might work”, but, “its theoretically impossible; if satellites could carry transmitters two orders of magnitude more powerful than they actually can, it might work.”

That's not what "theoretically impossible" means. You literally just described a scenario where what I said would be theoretically possible, based on your own understanding of the technology, which is decidedly incomplete.

You also didn't answer the question about your expertise, I'm assuming because your answer is, "No". Maybe leave the correcting of others to the actual experts...

> That's not what "theoretically impossible" means.

Sure it is, if the hypothetical is pointing out a constraint on the boundaries of theoretical impossibility (or, in theory, if the hypothetical is itself possible to describe but theoretically impossible because of physical limits, though that doesn't appear to be the case here; there might be a theoretical lower limit on the size of a transmitter of the require power output or the supporting power system, but in theory there is no limit to the size of a satellite except the bound at which it becomes the primary because it's larger than the thing it is supposed to orbit.)

> You also didn't answer the question about your expertise

A careful examination of the thread will find that no such question was previously raised. There are more than two people on HN, so just because you get a response that doesn't make the person responding necessarily the person to whom you were responding. HN shows comment authors handles in case you ever need to know to whom it is you are responding, which you might want to do before attacking them based on assumptions about their identity.

If getting paid to design ground stations for LEO satellite constellations counts as expertise, then yes, I'm an expert in this field.