Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 252 posts

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#241

Post by londons_explore »

jessriedel wrote: post #228
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be argued satellite internet is also a natural monopoly / duopoly. How many n-thousand satellite networks can there be? How many companies / countries can afford to launch n-thousand satellites?

There can be a lot. Given the immense volume above Earth, satellite collisions are only a worry because of the speeds that satellites travel and the current difficulty with coordinating them. As the technology for satellite coordination improves (tracking, low-propellent maneuvering, etc), the number of satellites that can fit will keep rising for a long time.

Geostationary orbit is a good example.

There, every satellite is following the exact same orbit, but different positions around it. There are 500+ satellites on it.

Now imagine how many possible orbits there are. If we could locate satellites accurately enough, we could give every 1 meter shell of altitude to another 500 satellites, giving us 2500000000 between earth and geostationary orbit.

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#242

Post by [deleted] »

Scaevolus wrote: post #61
new_realist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about debris from LEO collisions moving into higher orbits?

A single impact can't put something into a higher circular orbit-- it can create an elliptical orbit with a higher apogee (max distance), but the correspondingly nearer perigee (closest approach) means that it experiences more atmospheric drag and falls out of orbit faster.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#243

Post by throw0101a »

mtarnovan wrote: post #70
djsumdog wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that at least with the SpaceX satellites, they have full plans for decommissioning with these satellites re-entering the atmosphere. I do agree that this is a real concern though, and we'd hope there's pretty careful consideration, considering the sheer number of satellites being launched. Still, space is big .. really big, even the space just above our planet. I don't put it past humanity to not fuck up s…

This is relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS1ibDImAYU

See also anime:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#244

Post by Dylan16807 »

Applejinx wrote: post #213
Dylan16807 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, why not? Cheaper stuff, from another angle, means you can work fewer hours to achieve the same lifestyle. And that's pretty good!

But you don't. None of us do. At some point theory has to run into a reality check.

You can if you're a contractor or running your own business.

But it would definitely be nice for businesses in general and employment law to stop being obsessed with 40 hours as a magical number. Working 4 8-hour days, or 5 6-hour days, or 4 6-hour days should be just be an option by default.

(And wages have to stop stagnating relative to prices so that the premise of "cheaper stuff" actually happens in the first place.)

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#245

Post by fastball »

slashdev wrote: post #236
fastball wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get the idea that satellite constellation internet will cost $10000/m? Or that HFT firms aren't already paying much more than $49/m?

... They're just numbers picked out of the air for one last illustrative attempt to explain why you need something special to entice HFTs to pony up way more than a standard internet plan so you can monetize them effectively.

The point is that HFTs aren't going to be ponying up "way more"...

It's going to be a bit more, for a bit better latency.

Your comments are predicated on the assumption that this internet service is going to be significantly more expensive than existing fiber subscriptions, and therefore needs many benefits to outweigh the increased cost. But I have seen no reason to believe that this will be the case. Every statement I've seen indicates that these services will be quite competitive on price.

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#246

Post by jessriedel »

londons_explore wrote: post #241
jessriedel wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can be a lot. Given the immense volume above Earth, satellite collisions are only a worry because of the speeds that satellites travel and the current difficulty with coordinating them. As the technology for satellite coordination improves (tracking, low-propellent maneuvering, etc), the number of satellites that can fit will keep rising for a long time.

Geostationary orbit is a good example. There, every satellite is following the exact same orbit, but different positions around it. There are 500+ satellites on it. Now imagine how many possible orbits there are. If we could locate satellites accurately enough, we could give every 1 meter shell of altitude to another 500 satellites, giving us 2500000000 between earth and geostationary orbit.

The fact that there are only O(10^3) satellites in geostationary orbit is (I believe) mostly a limitation of ground antenna pointing accuracy than collision risk. There are many, many miles between each satellite along the arc.

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#247

Post by godelski »

eloff wrote: post #82
godelski wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that it's faster to just buy a server in NYC.

The idea is you profit on acting on cross market trading before anytime else can. It's not about latency to any single market.

Seeing something before someone else can IS latency. That's why servers on the NYSE floor (or ANY SE floor) are really expensive. Because it gives you an advantage. It isn't humans reacting and buying in HFT, it is computers. The humans are constantly updating algorithms, but HFT means it is the computers doing the reactions (based on algos written).

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#248

Post by aalleavitch »

adventured wrote: post #129
aalleavitch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If Amazon stops serving its customers well it'll go out of business. If it pisses people off it'll go out of business." This is the central myth of the free market. Part and parcel of a massive internet company is having control over the flow of information, how can people protect their rights if they don't even know they're being violated, or if they're being distracted from protecting themselves by lies and manipu…

> This is the central myth of the free market. Tell Sears and Kmart that it's a myth. Top US retailers in 1970: Sears, Pennys, Kmart, Woolworth, McCrory's, WT Grant, Genesco, Allied, May, Dayton-Hudson (Target) Only one of those remains on the list now (in an entirely different form at that). The Internet has changed nothing fundamental about whether a retailer can be replaced by competition. And no, Amazon's warehou…

The myth here, though, is not that companies are taken out by competitors with better technology or more ruthless practices or better PR, that happens all the time. The myth is that when this happens it is always in the customer’s best interests, or that the customer will even be allowed to become aware of what their own best interests really are. For a company there is no difference between genuinely benefitting their customers and manipulating their customers into believing that they have been benefitted. Making that determination falls on the customer themselves, and in the competition between global corporation and median consumer the consumer is wildly out-matched.

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#249

Post by jcims »

jcims wrote: post #110
caymanjim wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher orbits require higher velocities, which aren't going to be reached by collision debris.

It’s not likely but definitely not impossible. https://youtu.be/2UHS883_P60

For the sake of completeness, did a little digging, looks like it did happen in fact - https://celestrak.com/events/collision/

Re: Amazon Seeks Permission to Launch 3k Internet Satellites

#250

Post by slashdev »

fastball wrote: post #245
slashdev wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... They're just numbers picked out of the air for one last illustrative attempt to explain why you need something special to entice HFTs to pony up way more than a standard internet plan so you can monetize them effectively.

The point is that HFTs aren't going to be ponying up "way more"... It's going to be a bit more, for a bit better latency. Your comments are predicated on the assumption that this internet service is going to be significantly more expensive than existing fiber subscriptions, and therefore needs many benefits to outweigh the increased cost. But I have seen no reason to believe that this will be the case. Every statemen…

No, you've still completely missed the point. I give up.
Post reply on HN