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

Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–508 of 508 posts

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#501

Post by laumars »

lkbm wrote: post #499
laumars wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise not everyone has $500 to spare? For some people the distinction matters a lot. It’s the same reason some people with high end phones pay a larger monthly phone bill. They want a phone they cannot afford to buy so they pay in instalments as part of their mobile contract. So yes, it absolutely does matter to a lot of people.

It makes a huge difference to whether people buy it. It does not make a difference as a measure of "how much carbon does it release when they buy it", which is the question being debated in this thread.

> which is the question being debated in this thread.

That was discussed elsewhere in this thread. This discussion in this fork is very specifically about monitory costs.

Hence all the dollar signs. ;)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#502

Post by laumars »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #489
laumars wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise not everyone has $500 to spare? For some people the distinction matters a lot. It’s the same reason some people with high end phones pay a larger monthly phone bill. They want a phone they cannot afford to buy so they pay in instalments as part of their mobile contract. So yes, it absolutely does matter to a lot of people.

This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested. So you're worrying about that way too early. You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you. It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service".

> This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested

Not entirely true. The hardware is sold at a huge loss. If I recall correctly the dishes cost a grand to make. Musk expects those costs to come down but the fact remains he’s losing money with every sign up.

My point wasn’t about whether the cost is worth it though. It’s that the service costs 6 (!!!) times more than the GP claimed.

It’s really not a complicated point I’m making here either. I’m not judging the service, just correcting an error in someone’s post.

> So you're worrying about that way too early.

I’m not worried. Why would I be worried about how much an ISP I don’t need costs?

> You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you.

I could afford it now if I wanted it. But I’m also socially aware enough to see that most people aren’t as privileged as we are.

> It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service".

I’m skeptical this will ever become economical for low income families or lesser developed counties. The latter being a group that could really benefit from this.

Regarding cost of service, we moved on from the environmental impact a while ago and now just discussing the financial cost of service.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#503

Post by Dylan16807 »

laumars wrote: post #502
Dylan16807 wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested. So you're worrying about that way too early. You'll be able to get starlink without a big upfront fee later, I assure you. It's an issue but it's a separate issue from "high cost of service".

> This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested Not entirely true. The hardware is sold at a huge loss. If I recall correctly the dishes cost a grand to make. Musk expects those costs to come down but the fact remains he’s losing money with every sign up. My point wasn’t about whether the cost is worth it though. It’s that the service costs 6 (!!!) times more than…

> I could afford it now if I wanted it. But I’m also socially aware enough to see that most people aren’t as privileged as we are.

You and everyone else.

Is that implication not obvious?

You're so locked on to the privilege issue and misreading the word "you" that you're completely ignoring my point, which is that the privilege of paying a big upfront fee will not be necessary.

Just like dozens of other services, you'll be able to sign up for a contract and the equipment fee will become either a small monthly amount or get waived entirely.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#504

Post by nikolay »

mlindner wrote: post #300
nikolay wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asteroids enrich our planet with elements and the satellites are already made from existing ones. I'm never gonna use Starlink and not only because it's super pricey, but because the idea is just stupid.

> Asteroids enrich our planet with elements and the satellites are already made from existing ones. Well the elements from both arrive the same way. > I'm never gonna use Starlink and not only because it's super pricey, but because the idea is just stupid. It's cheaper and better than the competitors. If HughesNet and Viasat can serve customers, why can't Starlink and do it better and cheaper than either.

Not cheaper, no - SpaceX is doing a classical dumping and I'm not sure why the authorities are letting this fly! In general, Elon Musk got a lot of privileges from the government while acting as a Libertarian im words, not deeds! He is no hero!

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#505

Post by simion314 »

lstodd wrote: post #481
simion314 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They might rely on generators for electricity, and access might involve a boat, or a quad bike trail that would need enlarging before you could bring construction equipment in and run a cable along it. Who are this people? ARe they poor farmers or rich dudes on islands? >I mean ultimately the proof is in the pudding; if it were practical to run internet some other way they would already get it that way. It might be…

> Who are this people? ARe they poor farmers or rich dudes on islands? You know, there are poor dudes that live on islands too. Like one of my friends. It's a river island, it's only about five kilometers to the nearest cellular tower, and as you might guess running fiber across a major waterway is out of question. So we built a 20-meter tower with a 1.5-meter parabolic dish on top just to get 3G-ish speeds on the si…

Why I am not convinced that Elon and all HJN-ers here are thinking at poor people but instead find this extreme cases to shamelessly use them to promote the technology to work around the fact they don't like their mobile provider.

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#506

Post by laumars »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #503
laumars wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a beta with no subsidies yet and no promotions because they have too many people interested Not entirely true. The hardware is sold at a huge loss. If I recall correctly the dishes cost a grand to make. Musk expects those costs to come down but the fact remains he’s losing money with every sign up. My point wasn’t about whether the cost is worth it though. It’s that the service costs 6 (!!!) times more than…

> I could afford it now if I wanted it. But I’m also socially aware enough to see that most people aren’t as privileged as we are. You and everyone else . Is that implication not obvious? You're so locked on to the privilege issue and misreading the word "you" that you're completely ignoring my point, which is that the privilege of paying a big upfront fee will not be necessary . Just like dozens of other services, y…

Eventually you might be right. But you’re now talking about theoretical future rather than what the literal monetary cost of the service is right now.

I say that because my point wasn’t to say that Starlink is uneconomical for the poor and always will be. My point was just that the GPs post was factually incorrect because he left off a hugely significant sum (relative to the first month) for the cost of Starlink right now.

The point about privilege only came about after others handwaved that $500 as loose change and I only really made that point to illustrate how ridiculous it was to say “it’s fine to get a payment wrong by half a grand because we’re wealthy”. It just smacks of being out of touch with reality (or perhaps they were just Starlink/Musk fanboys and defending factually incorrect posts if it looks favourably on Starlink?).

My personal opinions of Starlink is that it looks really promising. In fact I nearly signed up 9 months ago myself when I moved house. The kicker was I needed it a available within a week and didn’t really want to run two service providers. I’m guess given that Starlink is still beta I was asking a little much there. The problem is my current ISP locks me into a 2 year service and as much as I can afford Starlink there’s other things I’d rather spend my money on than paying for two ISPs just for curiosities sake. I’ll probably review that decision when the contract for the current ISP has > 12 months remaining.

I’m sure I’m 5 years time the cost of Starlink will become a lot more attractive to lower income families in the west. Or at least those that might need to depend on it might find it easier to gain access to the service. But I’m skeptical we’ll see the service affordable for most rural communities in Africa, India or South America, to name but a few large regions that could really benefit from such a service. Maybe Musk does have a plan here. He certainly doesn’t owe these people any charity; however it does feel a missed opportunity if some arrangement couldn’t eventually be found.

Anyway, that’s my 2c worth of opinions :)

Re: Starlink lost 40 satellites to a geomagnetic storm

#508

Post by lmm »

simion314 wrote: post #505
lstodd wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who are this people? ARe they poor farmers or rich dudes on islands? You know, there are poor dudes that live on islands too. Like one of my friends. It's a river island, it's only about five kilometers to the nearest cellular tower, and as you might guess running fiber across a major waterway is out of question. So we built a 20-meter tower with a 1.5-meter parabolic dish on top just to get 3G-ish speeds on the si…

Why I am not convinced that Elon and all HJN-ers here are thinking at poor people but instead find this extreme cases to shamelessly use them to promote the technology to work around the fact they don't like their mobile provider.

Because you're looking at your own prejudices rather than the facts? I'm no fan of Musk and Starlink will never be any use to me (I live in the biggest urban area in the world), but knee-jerk reactionism disguised as environmentalism is one of the biggest barriers to actually fixing environmental issues.
Post reply on HN