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

US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 773 posts

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#561

Post by jmye »

pmorici wrote: post #79
NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really see how it's embarrassing that the FCC set out a clear requirement for a low-latency, 100/20M rural service and Starlink (having failed to show a plan to achieve that) is not accepted into the program. Which part is embarrassing to the FCC, exactly?

Because if you use the service you know it is capable of that and more today. SpaceX is also capable of providing differentiated service speeds so looking at what an average user is getting today is not indicative of what could be provided if they were under some minimum speed obligation. The FCC's rational is clearly them twisting themselves into knots to try and get to the decision they want to satisfy their prefer…

I’m confused. Do you think that SpaceX, who demonstrably failed to make those arguments, doesn’t know what it’s capable of? Or that they’re not smart enough to explain it?

You seem to consistently ignore that SpaceX didn’t even make that case, and I’m confused why they didn’t, or why you know their business and fit better than they do.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#562

Post by fastaguy88 »

shmatt wrote: post #284
jandrese wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it impressive that the government is actually punishing a project for running late and underdelivering. They should expand this to all parts of the government. Can you imagine if the F-35 was cancelled the first time it fell behind schedule? The Space Launch System? The Littoral Combat System? The USS JFK? So many boondoggles could be killed off before they spend money. Maybe contractors would have to start pr…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_military_pr... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_military_pro... F35 Survived but there are like 50 other planes that didnt in that second list

Those lists would be far more informative if they had some years associated with them. Many of the cancelled projects were prop-planes cancelled in the 1940's and 50's.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#563

Post by ianburrell »

throwaway4aday wrote: post #426
alwa wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m an unqualified casual observer and working from memory, but I seem to remember capacity and throughput promises related to the “Starlink 2.0” satellites, which Mr. Musk claims are “an order of magnitude better” than the current birds on unspecified measures [0], and without which Starlink couldn’t credibly deliver the promised service to the promised number of households in the promised time to earn the subsidy […

do you mean v3 instead of v2? I thought they already had v2 in service but just weren't able to launch very many of them on falcon

They came up with V2 Mini satellites that can fit on Falcon 9. The original V2 can only be launched on Starship. They can launch a lot more V1.5, 48-56, than V2 Mini, 22, on Falcon 9.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#564

Post by aksss »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #428
kelnos wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's one of the (many) frustrating things with Musk: he fairly consistently overpromises and underdelivers. Even if that underdelivering is better than what you can get elsewhere, it still leaves a bad taste in people's mouths.

> he fairly consistently overpromises and underdelivers. Can we please just call it what it really is? Lying. He's a pathological liar.

No, engineers and software developers tend to be overly optimistic about the ability and speed to do things, and it’s integral to the task of building cool shit. It’s simply not lying. It may look that way to those on the outside, and you can say it’s irresponsible not to recalibrate, but even the adjusted estimates are optimistically recalibrated. The estimating well is poisoned by vision. Lying is something very different.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#565

Post by robertlagrant »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49
rpmisms wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're replying to an accurate comment about how government funding works. I am educated on this, I have worked off of government grant money often, it's 100% who you know, not what you do.

Also involved in government procurement, also provide guidance to several Congressional reps gratis as a technologist subject matter expert. Change is possible, to believe otherwise is to give up. If you want to give up, head to the bar and make way for people who give a shit. I give a shit, so I am admittedly biased.

> Change is possible

The simplest and best way to ensure change is to fund a competitor who has a different approach. Not wanting to mindlessly throw money at the same people forever isn't giving up.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#566

Post by n8henrie »

LukeLambert wrote: post #109

My parents in rural Northeast Texas use Starlink as their primary connection (they have a WISP as failover). Since Sept. 2022, I've been running automated speed tests four times a day (1 and 7, AM and PM). Speeds vary a lot throughout the day, but average about 100 Mbps down by 10 Mbps up. https://gist.github.com/LukeLambert/dd722e49bc773bcb27e859d9...

I'm in very rural NW New Mexico on Starlink for the last 18 mo or so. I run a q 15 minute Fast.com speed test via HomeAssistant. Speeds are almost always between 60 and 80 mbps.

Previously was on the only local competitor without data caps, 6 mbps via DSL. All others are either cell or satellite based and would destroy my wallet at my usually usage (Starlink has been a godsend.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#567

Post by chiefalchemist »

uxp100 wrote: post #552
chiefalchemist wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many startups start by telling investors, employees and customers, "We're going to fail"? They know the odds are that's going to happen. Are they pathological liars? No one can predict the future. Musk is what plenty of entrepreneurs are...over-confident. That's part of the profile. That doesn't make him or any of them liars.

I think plenty of entrepreneurs emphasize that they are scrappy underdogs, that it’s a long shot, and that it’s going to take hard work. That’s you know, the optimistic side of the truth that they’re going to fail. I’m sure Musk has said things like this. He’s also just lied about stuff. He’s remarkably careless about what he says/tweets for a CEO. Might have something to do with his drug use, who knows.

Careless? Oh yeah. A bit of filtering would improve the public's perception of him. But when you've gotten to where you are because of who you've always been *and* it's worked out well, very well, there's simply no incentive to change. At some point it's simply unreasonable for anyone to expect it to happen.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#568

Post by ianburrell »

appplication wrote: post #9
JPKab wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there was any doubt this was purely political, that quote erases it. The FCC rural broadband program is an infamous boondoggle of vast overspending on bad services from third rate providers. It's insane that they even mentioned Starship in this, when it was a test launch of the largest rocket in history, and has nothing to do with the Starlink launches.

As much as I really despise just about everything adjacent to musk, I think you’re right. Wtf does starship have to do with starlink.

Starship is the only way that Starlink could meet its targets for capacity. The performance of Starlink depends on the number of subscribers and satellites. They have been growing subscribers faster than satellites which is why the performance in the report has been dropping. The only solution is to launch more satellites.

SpaceX started launching V2 satellites on Falcon 9, but they can only fit 22 on each rocket instead of the 50 or so with previous version. Even with their increased launch rate, there is no way they can launch the tens of thousands of satellites they have planned.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#569

Post by DonHopkins »

czl wrote: post #543
JohnFen wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have real trouble with "the ends justify the means" arguments. > Is it scammy? Probably. It's the behavior of a con artist. > But he likely got more out of people by pushing this false narrative than would have been otherwise accomplished. Even if that's the case, he could have had the same, or better, effect without the lying. The lying is clearly aimed at gaining investment money and preorders, though, not at som…

> The lying is clearly aimed at gaining investment money and preorders, though, not at some bizarre attempt at motivating engineers. It would be dumb to be caught "lying" over and over and Musk is not know to be dumb. Consider the possibility Musk is using reflexivity to accelerate progress. When people become convinced something is possible and work towards that goal their strong belief changes reality because there…

It would be dumb to be caught agreeing with anti semitic tweets, and telling advertisers to "go fuck yourself", yet here we are. Your argument is invalid.

Re: US agency will not reinstate $900M subsidy for Starlink

#570

Post by ianburrell »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #241
ianburrell wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Pentagon deployment project? I can't find any news stories about military rolling out Starlink. The only news is US paying for Ukraine's access; cutting off Ukraine would not be good for SpaceX. The military doesn't need Starlink with all their communications satellites. They are looking at it for polar use where Starlink has better coverage. Are you talking about the SDA Starshield constellation? That isn't lau…

Starshield

Starshield has nothing to with Starlink business. The only thing that might affect it is the military wants to launch lots of Starshield-based satellites and that keeps SpaceX from launching Starlink satellites. But then SpaceX would get paid lots of money for the launches. The military hasn't agreed to launch constellation; my suspicion is that they are waiting for Starship.
Post reply on HN