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

691–700 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#691

Post by dhfbshfbu4u3 »

cj wrote: post #158
samwillis wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's similar (ish), but I think unfortunately the comparison distracts from your core point and observation. Musk Inc. is, in essence, a privet equity company. He raises a fund, and invests it along with his own cash into a business he knows well, and with which he believes he can disrupt the status quo. He's very hands on, understanding all the important core details, setting culture, and pushing hard . But he also…

I’m curious why this is being downvoted (seems to hit the nail on the head)

It’s not being downvoted due to any inaccuracy, but rather the implied positive sentiment about Musk’s involvement with the government.

A more pessimistic view might be: Musk’s businesses have technological advantages but are financially over-leveraged. Their present success relies on heavy government subsidies while their future success depends on complete privatization of government functions.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#692

Post by perihelions »

pyrale wrote: post #680
perihelions wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- "I don't see what would prevent China from shooting down Starlink's constellation." They absolutely do not have tens of thousands of anti-satellite missiles, or any other credible (non-nuclear) way to dismantle a constellation of that size. If you look at their own news media[0], they (Chinese defense) consider it a major weakness, and priority. [0] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3178939/chin... (…

There aren't tens of thousands of Starlink satellites over China, and I suspect the issue would be solved or escalated way before the whole constellation gets down.

- "There aren't tens of thousands of Starlink satellites over China"

Sure there are; that's how orbits work. These aren't geostationary satellites.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#693

Post by everfrustrated »

quailfarmer wrote: post #553
modeless wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple's feature is not comparable. It is extremely low bandwidth and requires special hardware and holding the phone pointing in a certain direction. Starlink acts as a regular (albeit low bandwidth) 4G tower in space.

Starlink DTC is also very low bandwidth in this generation, it’s is a fundamentally similar RF link budget

Starlink allows calling (Apple's can't) which requires a higher bandwidth by definition.

Obviously it will never have the bandwidth of a local cell site, but doesn't need to to still be useful.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#694

Post by pyrale »

perihelions wrote: post #692
pyrale wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't tens of thousands of Starlink satellites over China, and I suspect the issue would be solved or escalated way before the whole constellation gets down.

- "There aren't tens of thousands of Starlink satellites over China" Sure there are; that's how orbits work. These aren't geostationary satellites.

I understand how orbits work, but the current count for the whole constellation isn't at tens of thousands to begin with.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#695

Post by nathancahill »

verzali wrote: post #568
starik36 wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if they are dead in the water or not. However, they have until July 30, 2026 to deploy half of their fleet or they lose the FCC granted frequencies. The fleet is 3232 satellites. So far they launched 2 test satellites. They contracted most of the launches to either new rockets or ones in development, like New Glenn, Ariane 6, ULA Vulcan. They actually had to contract three Falcon 9 launches to help out with…

The FCC will be lenient, they have no reason not to be unless Musk is leaning on them.

Look who just joined the incoming administration...

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#696

Post by michaelt »

adastra22 wrote: post #577
quailfarmer wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do depreciate, even if the later launches are more valuable, that increase in value is marginal compared to the per-launch capital cost. Airplanes, cars, buildings, everything depreciates.

What do you mean by per-launch capital cost? Maintenance? The increase in value of a F9 booster after use is more than the near-negligible per-launch maintenance cost.

"Depreciation" and "capital cost" reflect the fact the vehicle has a maximum life, even given maintenance.

Imagine if I buy a $200,000 Lamborghini which, with regular servicing, will survive 100,000 miles.

That means for every mile I drive, not only am I paying for fuel, and insurance, and tyres, and servicing - I'm also paying, on average, $2/mile in depreciation.

And sure, the "true" value chart might not be linear. Maybe there'll be a sharp drop when the car ceases to be brand new, or a bump in value when it becomes a classic. But so long as it's worth $200k at 0 miles and $0 at 100k miles, the average cost of a mile must be $2.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#698

Post by dotancohen »

flyinglizard wrote: post #554
griomnib wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There can only be one Main Character, and Trump doesn’t share the spotlight with anybody. Elon will fuck up and his money won’t save him from what comes after that.

Elon knows well enough to act as a supporting character. He can't run for presidency anyway given he's not a native, and no other political post would be interesting enough. There'll be no falling out.

Trump is not a native either, his family is German and Scottish (just checked). So far as I know a native has never held the presidency in the US.
Post reply on HN