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

751–760 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#751

Post by sneak »

b112 wrote: post #615
hhh wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starshield != Starlink

Parent should have said "SpaceX", Starlink is just a subsidiary. SpaceX has more military applications than Starshield alone. For example, SpaceX's assembly line will be pumping out (eventually) a rocket a day. That's the plan. From a military perspective, Starship is supposed to be able to send 100+ people on long space trips. If that is instead to deliver troops to other parts of the planet, I'm sure hundreds could…

Starship as passenger transport point to point on Earth is a nonstarter most likely, even for civilian applications.

It looks just like an ICBM, because it is an ICBM. I doubt Russian and Chinese air defence forces will wait for them to land and see if it’s full of people or plutonium before launching a retaliatory strike.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#752

Post by philjohn »

_heimdall wrote: post #676
starspangled wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I heard he was going to have some advisory or executive capacity on government operation. There's a significant conflict of interest there if he's running and owning these companies at the same time.

Its hard to determine a conflict of interest when the role isn't clear though, and the problem there is that everyone can really go off of what they heard through the grape vine. If the role truly is advisory I wouldn't personally see that as a conflict of interest. Regulators are often asking for advise from those they are meant to regulate without it getting flagged as a conflict of interest (for better or worse).

It used to be that even a WHIFF of conflict of interest was treated as "no smoke without fire, better divest".

Carter placed his peanut farm in a blind trust to avoid precisely that - sadly, we have seen a complete erosion of norms, standards, and morals in public life.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#753

Post by sneak »

est31 wrote: post #523
nordsieck wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is it really required to be an LEO constellation? It would certainly be good, so that eventually the satellites deorbit and contribute less to Kesseler syndrome risk. But some nation state might chose to not care about that and deploy at higher and more stable orbits.

Yes. We had satellite internet services before and they sucked bad due to latency. Space is big and light is slow.

Also, more people per satellite, so less capacity per person.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#754

Post by itsoktocry »

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…

>Folks it’s game set and match, the trophy has been handed over and the crowd has gone home

Has this ever been the case in the history of business?

It won't be easy, but forever is a long time.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#755

Post by azaslavsky »

davej wrote: post #631

Tangent: my understanding is the Zuckerberg wanted to do something similar and even paid SpaceX to launch a satellite (which was unsuccessful). It seems Musk liked the idea so much that he decided to do it himself. To me, this (along with Zuck's issues with Apple over the app store) explains a lot about why Zuck 2.0 has been so focused with avoiding platform risk with recent endeavours.

If that's actually how events played out, one hopes that Zuck would at least be able to appreciate the irony of his idea being stolen by a vendor he hired to implement it.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#756

Post by acrophiliac »

paxys wrote: post #252
acrophiliac wrote: post #251

A quick glance at these comments indicates the majority are excited about Starlink. I must be in the minority. Is anyone else here on HN very unhappy with the prospect of having no place to escape internet access? I love the idea of no-rescue zones. https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/print-issues/hike-at-your... Not trying to change anyone's mind, just wondering if I'm a complete outlier.

You already have the option of escaping internet access, anywhere in the world – by turning off your device.

Gee, thanks, I hadn't thought of that. (Seriously, did you read the article?)

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#757

Post by system2 »

carabiner wrote: post #477
system2 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Garmin InReach has existed already for years. It didn't take the feeling away from me and I felt more comfortable having it in my backpack just in case. Wilderness adventures shouldn't be life or death experiences.

Starlink here, which includes data, is a huge jump from emergency SOS on Inreach. I do think we'll lose some of the magic of outdoors experiences when we can check nytimes.com and Reddit in the backcountry.

With Garmin InReach you can text actively. And I didn't. It is a mindset IMHO. If a person cannot control him/herself from using a phone while camping it is on them. No tech can change that and they will end up watching offline shows on their downloaded shows.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#758

Post by MichaelZuo »

modeless wrote: post #515
s1artibartfast wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it is a fascinating outcome when a vertically integrated monopoly is the cheapest option, and best consumer value. The challenge is figuring out if the firm is really providing the best value, or just a local minimum.

My understanding is Standard Oil provided good service for low prices in most cases. It's not always the case that monopolies provide super expensive or bad service.

Yes, hence why it lasted for over a decade even with >>50% of the market in many jurisdictions.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#759

Post by 93po »

aniviacat wrote: post #702
pandemic_region wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This would open up hunters, Christ what more do you guys need to shoot a rabbit.

Hunters observe wildlife. They don't just shoot wildlife whenever they feel like it.

i guess they were confused by the giant rifle attached to their "observing" scopes

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#760

Post by carabiner »

system2 wrote: post #757
carabiner wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink here, which includes data, is a huge jump from emergency SOS on Inreach. I do think we'll lose some of the magic of outdoors experiences when we can check nytimes.com and Reddit in the backcountry.

With Garmin InReach you can text actively. And I didn't. It is a mindset IMHO. If a person cannot control him/herself from using a phone while camping it is on them. No tech can change that and they will end up watching offline shows on their downloaded shows.

SMS texting on Inreach is so different from full data/internet. It's like smart phone vs. dumb phone. One is vastly more addictive.
Post reply on HN