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

Starlink Direct to Cell

starlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#651

Post by GJim »

nikkwong wrote: post #308
mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

My family had starlink installed at a remote house we own for internet access. While we could get it up and running, the connection wasn't reliable and we encountered many issues. When we tried to contact Starlink for help, support was non-existent; sent us to multiple dead ends, and often wasted our times with repairs promised weeks into the future, over and over, which never surfaced. After 8 months of pain, we end…

> moving back to our 6mbps

* Mbps

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#652

Post by michaelt »

starspangled wrote: post #436
ryandrake wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For obvious reasons I think it's pretty safe to say we can count on at least the next four years of zero regulation or government scrutiny of any company Musk is involved in, monopoly-related or otherwise.

You believe the FAA, FCC, OHSA, EPA, FDA, etc., will cease to regulate SpaceX, Tesla, Nuralink operations? That seems pretty outlandish.

They won't cease to regulate, no.

But you may have noticed companies like Boeing getting white-glove treatment from regulators.

You know, deciding that their competitor's cheaper aircraft should be subject to a 300% tariff. Not burdening them with too much scrutiny about whether that modified aircraft should keep the same type rating. Taking their word for it when they say every aircraft has 100% of the door bolts installed. If they have broken some regulations, maybe giving a $150 billion company a $250 million fine.

Not ceasing to regulate - just regulators with broad discretionary power exercising that discretion in line with the will of the politicians who appoint them.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#653

Post by Cthulhu_ »

nordsieck wrote: post #363
modeless wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Starlink is indeed awesome and SpaceX deserves every bit of their success. But there will be competitors eventually, if for no other reason than foreign militaries sponsoring them. There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market. We can only hope the competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX has been about space debris risk and ensuring the satellites are not visible to the naked e…

IMO, one of the central problems is the cost of launching stuff into space. Today, SpaceX offers world leading low prices to launch satellites: $4 m / tonne[1]. But Starlink has access to launch at cost , which is $0.86 m / tonne[2]. Which is a huge advantage when launching an enormous number of satellites. One thing to keep in mind, especially for these LEO constellations: the lifetime of these satellites is 5-10 ye…

Yeah in theory China is the biggest potential competitor, having both a space program, a state deeply involved in business, etc. But their space tech is archaic in comparison, using really nasty fuels to blast stuff into space. The reusability of SpaceX's rockets is a feat that is years ahead of the competition - it's been nearly ten years since the first recovered Falcon 9 booster in a commercial launch if my quick fact check is accurate, and no other competitor, private or governmental, has managed it yet. And in a few years they will have a reusable vessel capable of launching 100 tonnes into LEO, at a fraction of the development and launch cost of e.g. the Space Shuttle.

Unless of course Musk's political fuckery ends up dismantling SpaceX. But, Musk didn't do the engineering on these feats, so the knowledge and patents will continue on if he doesn't.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#654

Post by palata »

u2sweetie wrote: post #634
LightBug1 wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd. You seem to be overjoyed at the possible birth of a monopoly situation? I think your emotions and tribal instinct would be better served towards something more benign, like football or baseball ... Lest your voting intentions become equally malignant.

You seem to have a lot of creativity in your judgements as none of this follows from his comment.

Can you read this sentence and tell me how none of this follows from it?

> SpaceX and Starlink have the same owner, both are private companies, with SpaceX launching 80% of the global space payload last year and rising, and Starlink has a constellation two orders of magnitude bigger than any competitor. It’s over. And IMO it’s awesome.

It says: "It's a private monopoly, and IMO it's awesome"

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#656

Post by matwood »

scotty79 wrote: post #449
mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

> The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. Don't forget over $15bln of tax money they got for doing barely anything so far.

I think it's important to recognize the irony in how much SpaceX and Tesla benefit from government programs and funds that he now wants to turn off as part of DOGE, but you can't say SpaceX has barely done anything.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#657

Post by u2sweetie »

palata wrote: post #654
u2sweetie wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have a lot of creativity in your judgements as none of this follows from his comment.

Can you read this sentence and tell me how none of this follows from it? > SpaceX and Starlink have the same owner, both are private companies, with SpaceX launching 80% of the global space payload last year and rising, and Starlink has a constellation two orders of magnitude bigger than any competitor. It’s over. And IMO it’s awesome. It says: "It's a private monopoly, and IMO it's awesome"

[flagged]

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#659

Post by tremarley »

grecy wrote: post #13
innagadadavida wrote: post #7

Doesn’t Globestar still have more satellites in orbit? With Apple supporting them, hoping there will be some consumer choice. This looking like regular cellular will become the new landline company.

Globestar have 48 Satellites in orbit [1] Starlink has 6,426 [2] (Though that number is likely out of date by the time you read this) [1] https://www.groundcontrol.com/knowledge/calculators-and-maps... [2] https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html

Staking has over 7,000 now

They plan to launch 34,400 satellites

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#660

Post by spacemanspiff01 »

Salmonfisher11 wrote: post #643
verzali wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or when they built their own GPS system and it ended up being far more accurate than any other system in use? Or when they built their own Earth observation system and it was also better than anyone elses? Or when they built their own weather monitoring constellation and forecast model and it ended up superior to all others? Or when they built the world's most powerful particle collider and discovered the Higgs boson…

> Or when they built their own GPS system and it ended up being far more accurate than any other system in use? It actually is. But yes - that project was a shitshow for a long time. Galileo HAS now offers 30cm accuracy with less than 100s convergence time not needing additional correction servers/stations. Also spoofing resistant thanks to cryptographic signing (Galileo Open Service Navigation Message Authentication…

My impression is that the US system does, but the higher accuracy is still reserved for military use?
Post reply on HN