SpaceX gets $886M from FCC to subsidize Starlink in 35 states • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by SiempreViernes » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

akarma wrote: post #127

juanbyrge wrote: post #9

If there is any corporate entity I'd happy giving public funding, it would be SpaceX. Their end goal is to settle Mars and potentially other bodies in the solar system. Compared with the absurd amounts of money wasted on defense contractors, I am perfectly happy with funding SpaceX in every way possible.

Also, when a company has such an impactful goal that will, if successful, lead to it having power, it feels important that it's at least somewhat tied to the government. I'm very capitalistic, but if SpaceX successfully colonizes Mars and builds factories there, I can imagine some frightening scenarios where it has considerable control over the U.S. rather than the U.S. having control over it.

Musk is pretty clearly in the "my way or the high way" school of governance.

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

#142

Post by wmf » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #126

nikolay wrote: post #58

Elon Musk is no Iron Man. All his companies are built with taxpayer money. When did I sign up to be irradiated by his satellites?!

Tesla was built before tax payer money, they got loans for scaling. They paid them back with interest, the tax payer profited. SpaceX was also mostly built with Musk's personal fortune, after they developed the Merlin engine, and got the Falcon 1 to orbit, only then did they get contracts from NASA, and they actually saved NASA money, because SpaceX launch costs are significantly lower, ergo, in a way, they also paid…

Tesla also makes money selling various environmental credits which are usually viewed as a government subsidy. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/23/teslas-sale-of-environmental...

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

#143

Post by nikolay » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #126

nikolay wrote: post #58

Elon Musk is no Iron Man. All his companies are built with taxpayer money. When did I sign up to be irradiated by his satellites?!

Tesla was built before tax payer money, they got loans for scaling. They paid them back with interest, the tax payer profited. SpaceX was also mostly built with Musk's personal fortune, after they developed the Merlin engine, and got the Falcon 1 to orbit, only then did they get contracts from NASA, and they actually saved NASA money, because SpaceX launch costs are significantly lower, ergo, in a way, they also paid…

So, Elon Musk first flirted with Democrats, because this is how he got the buddy favors. But this year, he probably saw a change in the wind and started to flirt with Republicans - I expect him following the wind again...

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

#144

Post by bumby » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

ryanSrich wrote: post #138

bumby wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if those who would argue against funding SpaceX take the "either traditional defense contractors or SpaceX" bait. I think a major argument is that there are better ways to spend the money here on Earth. I.e., it's nobler and more feasible to protect and improve this planet than settle another one. As a former space industry worker, I don't know if I subscribe to that, but that's the best steelmanning I c…

> it's nobler and more feasible to protect and improve this planet than settle another one That's an incredibly short sighted argument. As if this planet will last forever. I don't get this attitude at all. It's like saying why plan for the future at all!

It's probably a matter of convention. We consider solar a renewable resource even though the sun will eventually die out. Humans are wired to think little beyond generational timelines, not geological ones.

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

#145

Post by nevdka » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

ativzzz wrote: post #115

nevdka wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The infrastructure those companies have built already exists, and the subsidies are mostly going to pay debt. If the subsidies stopped, the companies would go bankrupt. Their assets would be sold to another company, likely at a price less than the debt. The new company could therefore have a lower debt burden, and wouldn't necessarily need the subsidies to provide the same level of service. The subsidies are stopping…

Sure, but what about the people who will have disrupted or potentially no internet access/support while the market is sorting itself out? If your plan is to be carried out, then there is ripe opportunity for a politician to come to these areas an say, "vote for me, I will protect your internet access" and then fight for the funding instead.

Treat it like any other utility - it continues to run, just without servicing its debts. Most of the expense is paying for capital. Stop that (because bankruptcy) and the ISP can be profitable, and sold to whoever pays the most.

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

#146

Post by markdown » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #102

markdown wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can't even stop our own planet from warming...

It's not an either-or. This canard comes up a lot. The US federal government invests in an enormous number of things, think of it as a huge portfolio. NASA's budget is less than 0.5% of the federal budget, it's existence won't harm policies needed to mitigate climate change (e.g. carbon taxes), and indeed, a chunk of NASA's investment helps climate science.

Oh I didn't mean what you think I meant. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.

I'm not one of those "why spend money on space when humans are starving on Earth" people.

My point was more about the actual technology required to terraform a planet. Why talk about terraforming Mars when our own would be saved by the same non-existent tech.

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

#147

Post by AveryEm » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

nikolay wrote: post #124

stetrain wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those darn radio waves! Hold on I gotta take this call on my iPhone.

Well, I may want to go to a refuge without any electronics.

What are satellites up in orbit stopping you from not using electronics?

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

#148

Post by dQw4w9WgXcQ » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:23 PM UTC

rurp wrote: post #137

dkdk8283 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t characterize defense spending as waste. China is a significant threat, for example, and maintaining superiority over them is of national importance IMO.

I can't think of a single scenario where having more tanks or fighter jets would be decisive in a full scale conflict between nuclear powers. Suppose the US and China get into a direct conflict. How does the US having a 10x advantage in the number of traditional arms vs only, say, 2x stop China from threatening to obliterate humanity with nukes the minute their leadership is facing an existential crisis?

Nukes have pretty much ensured via MAD that there is no future "full scale direct conflict" between major powers. No matter how narcissistic some despot might be, their overwhelming self-interest still realizes there's not much power held over an empty parking lot or when vaporized into the side of a building. It's proxy wars from here on out.

Given that, you can't think of a single scenario where having multiple floating runways would possibly benefit wartime?

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

#149

Post by aroch » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

saberience wrote: post #125

aroch wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling the British navy a battle ready fleet would be rather a positive attitude. Their submarine and surface ship captains don't know how to navigate, running aground and into other boats. And their aircraft carriers don't even have enough crew/planes and will deploy US Marine Corp units to meet their full complement. It will likely take the UK 15-20 years for the two new Carriers to be at full operating capability…

What are you saying about UK ships not knowing how to navigate? The US navy is far, far worse in that respect, the British navy hasn't had anything near as bad as this happen anytime recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Fitzgerald_and_MV_ACX_Crys...

Over the last few years there have been several (4-5) instances of British subs nearly striking surface ships in their home waters. Also running aground right outside their home port in 2010. Not exactly reassuring.

The US Navy is much bigger and has global operations. They're just as guilty of being careless but they also have proven war fighting capabilities. No one is asking the British to sail by as a show of power and solidarity.

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

#150

Post by drusepth » Mon, Dec 07, 2020, 10:24 PM UTC

politelemon wrote: post #16

tzm wrote: post #14

I live in the Mission hills of SF Bay and pay $600 / mo for internet via mobile hotspot (LTE). HughesNet is terrible. Nothing else is available. I can't wait for Starlink beta!

> $600 / mo for internet via mobile hotspot (LTE). I'm not familiar with that area but my mind boggles at this amount. What kind of speeds do you get? Are that ISP able to offer a cheaper deal of some sort, eg 12 months? Why is it so much!? Wishing you well, I hope you get Starlink soon in your area, or any alternatives.

I'm not OP, but my parents house in Missouri sits around $300/mo for internet via mobile hotpot, occasionally getting up to around $500/mo in the months were a lot of family visit. HughesNet is their only available ISP, so they just went with a data plan through either AT&T or T-Mobile ("unlimited" but with a data cap with expensive overages that also drop you down to dialup-esque speeds) and stick that SIM card in their router.

There was also a brief stint of time when I lived in Europe in a long-term Airbnb that didn't tell us there was a data cap (and since we weren't real residents, we couldn't set up our own internet) and I got nearly $500/mo for a few months doing video calls for work etc from my LTE.