SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states

I think I read somewhere the beam size for starlink is around 200km diamater. That's actually really far. You'd probably want to service rural areas fairly distant from metro areas well, rather than slam the sat with a handful of suburban city customers.

I could be wrong but my guess is they will blacklist areas near cities entirely at least to begin with and focus on very rural areas with literally no alternative (no LTE etc).

Personally I think Starlink is going to have capacity crisis quickly if takeup is anywhere near as strong as demand seems to be and I'm sure SpaceX know this, so by fcoussing almost entirely on very rural areas (and maybe niche commercial/govt uses in more urban enviroments) they have a chance at managing demand a bit. Or they will start ramping up cost of service and/or putting very punitive bandwidth caps on (like all other sat providers).

I still think Starlink is an amazing breakthrough, but it really is a solution only for the 'last'/most rural 1% of households (or less).

As a taxpayer, I'm quite pleased with the SpaceX ROI for getting "my" astronauts and satellites up.

Especially when you compare what Orion or paying the Russians for a ride to the ISS has cost.

I don't know, but I suspect for the readership of Hacker News at least it's pretty high. (And I suspect there's a lot more people who can picture themselves working from home indefinitely than if you had asked the question a year ago.)

Not all jobs can be done remotely, but for the ones that can, the various impediments seem to be dropping away.

1) Every defense contractor mentions interest in controlling costs; they bid against each other with these specific values in mind.

The problem is over-run and underestimation, and the govts' lack of flexibility with regards to contract termination in most instances.

2) Defense spending has been historically hovering between 15-25 percent in the United States.

'Taxpayer savings' does not, nor has it ever, indicated more money in the hands of the taxpayer -- it indicates how many new projects will be budgeted.

In other words : The tax payer saves nothing, but the military is given extra toys within the same budget.

Now, whether or not you are for or against the further arming of our troops and allied fighters -- that's a personal question.. but let's not pretend this equates to saved cash for the citizenry.

> If it helps ensure the diversity of ISP competition in the US market, then yes

The US ISP market is already fairly diverse. There are some 3000 ISPs in the US.

> $886m is a bargain if it helps meaningfully with that (assuming it's not a frequent subsidy).

Aye, therein lies the rub. Starlink will require a frequent and recurring subsidy, unless it can become profitable on its own.

Each and every satellite they put up will burn up in five years.

> There is a large difference between putting up a few percent of their constellation to reach initial minimum viability and putting up enough satellites to properly cover the rest of the world (a very expensive endeavor that will take years).

Maybe Starlink should have been required to demonstrate viability before allowing it to qualify for government subsidies?

> Plus, the US Government may directly benefit in a very big way from utilizing Starlink and that may make it a bargain compared to the alternatives. If US defense contractors were building that constellation, they'd be spending ten times what SpaceX is. > > And that's before we get to the potential for intelligence gathering globally. The powers that be will be all over that, no matter what SpaceX claims to the contrary (SpaceX will have a gun to their head and will not have a choice, just as the Prism gang had no choice).

If the DoD wants Starlink then they should pay for it themselves.