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

SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 136 posts

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#71

Post by [deleted] »

xenospn wrote: post #67
jblake wrote: post #23

I'm so excited for Starlink! As a solo founder I do all of my support, but I like to frequently go off-roading and camping outside of cell service. I have a satellite messenger for critical things, but it still leaves me feeling quite anxious to go on extended trips. If I can toss a starlink dish in a briefcase and get fast affordable internet in the Sierra's, life will be good.

I wanted to move to rural OR/WA a couple of years ago, but couldn't find a single property with high-speed internet. This is (hopefully) a game-changer.

[deleted]

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#72

Post by NikolaeVarius »

gonehome wrote: post #56

I don't know how Loon [0] (graduated Google X project) can look at this and justify their continued existence. Low earth orbit satellites with global coverage seem like such a better approach than balloons that you have to handle in the air assuming the following is true: - Latency difference between the two is negligible - Satellites are not uniquely affected by weather - Balloons are not better in some other unknow…

You don't need to launch rockets

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#73

Post by syncsynchalt »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #69
syncsynchalt wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main booster (all three of them) were attached to the orbiter and were re-used, though not without refurbishment. (Falcon 9 is also refurbished after each launch).

The shuttle had two boosters, not three. It also had an external tank that burned in the atmosphere. The boosters were technically reusable, but refurbishing them after the corrosive bath they've taken by their landing in the ocean was much more expensive than making new ones from scratch. You'll note that SpaceX lands their rockets on a barge, instead of landing them on water and fishing them out later - that's beca…

I think I've confused my terminology, as "main booster" usually means the first stage as a whole, but I used it to refer to the individual SSMEs.

But I think _you're_ referring to the SRBs.

In both cases (SSME and SRB) they were re-used in some fashion, though I agree the SRB re-use was not a good solution.

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#74

Post by TeMPOraL »

syncsynchalt wrote: post #73
TeMPOraL wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The shuttle had two boosters, not three. It also had an external tank that burned in the atmosphere. The boosters were technically reusable, but refurbishing them after the corrosive bath they've taken by their landing in the ocean was much more expensive than making new ones from scratch. You'll note that SpaceX lands their rockets on a barge, instead of landing them on water and fishing them out later - that's beca…

I think I've confused my terminology, as "main booster" usually means the first stage as a whole, but I used it to refer to the individual SSMEs. But I think _you're_ referring to the SRBs. In both cases (SSME and SRB) they were re-used in some fashion, though I agree the SRB re-use was not a good solution.

Yeah, SSMEs didn't have contact with salt water and were easier to refurb :). In general, they were a work of art.

I thought you meant SRBs because they too were advertised as reusable, even though in practice, they weren't.

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#75

Post by thekyle »

ktrl wrote: post #54

There has been a lot of discussion about light pollution from the 1500+ planned Starlink satellites. However much of the discussion is based on the assumption that the world will collectively let Starlink operate as monopoly. How much will light pollution increase when the next competitor launches 1500+ satellites? How much will light pollution increase when a Chinese competitor launches yet another 1500+ satellites?

I'm more concerned about the space junk aspect of it. My understanding is that as satellites collide they produce millions of tiny deadly particles. If we have enough of those in orbit then it will effectively trap us on earth.

I'm all for faster internet, but not at the cost of making space travel impossible.

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#76

Post by rootusrootus »

Even for those of us living in a suburban area, it will be great having another option to use as a bludgeon against Comcast. Right now they can just laugh if you say you're going to cancel due to a rate hike, because they know the next-fastest provider is 4 Mbps.

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#77

Post by elif »

Reedx wrote: post #68
sontek wrote: post #25

As someone who lives in the mountains of Puerto Rico and has to rely on "unlimited" cell phone coverage that data caps me and satellite internet that also has data caps.... I can't wait until starlink is up and running and we may have an option for high speed, low latency, internet for us who hate cities and love nature :)

Yeah, if it really does deliver ~25ms latency and up to 1GBPS, work from anywhere becomes much more literal. Currently a lot of remote work and things like multiplayer games are limited to areas with reliable broadband. But if you can get that anywhere... it'll be amazing and have a profound effect.

It will work from anywhere after about 90 more launches and thousands of ground relays being installed, and the antenna is the size of a watermelon.

So "anywhere" would be limited to vanlife on up, in a place that doesn't have trees, in the markets initially served, which will likely be rural US.

But starlink v2? I'll be on a cute Panamanian island :)

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#78

Post by phkahler »

hylaride wrote: post #10
Valgrim wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know the space shuttle reused it's boosters. Apparently the two solid rocket boosters deployed parachutes after separation and were refurbished. Interesting! However the main booster could not be reused...

By "main booster" did you mean the big red thing? That was a fuel storage tank and yes, it was not re-used.

But it fed fuel to the 3 main engines on the orbiter, which were reused. The price of the tank should have been much lower than the engines.

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#79

Post by modeless »

thekyle wrote: post #75
ktrl wrote: post #54

There has been a lot of discussion about light pollution from the 1500+ planned Starlink satellites. However much of the discussion is based on the assumption that the world will collectively let Starlink operate as monopoly. How much will light pollution increase when the next competitor launches 1500+ satellites? How much will light pollution increase when a Chinese competitor launches yet another 1500+ satellites?

I'm more concerned about the space junk aspect of it. My understanding is that as satellites collide they produce millions of tiny deadly particles. If we have enough of those in orbit then it will effectively trap us on earth. I'm all for faster internet, but not at the cost of making space travel impossible.

SpaceX moved the satellites to lower orbits, so any broken satellites or debris will fall out of the sky within a few years due to atmospheric drag. And they are specifically designed to burn up completely in reentry. The real concern is in higher orbits where debris would persist for millennia. This is not a concern for Starlink.

Re: SpaceX launches 60 more Starlink satellites

#80

Post by virtue3 »

jesseb wrote: post #8
new_realist wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the Space Shuttle.

Except for the fact that a Falcon 9 is a small fraction of the cost.

Only carries about 2/3 of the total shuttle payload to LEO when configured as reusable. Still puts it at 1/10th the cost of the shuttle tho.
Post reply on HN