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

781–790 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#781

Post by aguaviva »

throwaway290 wrote: post #778
aguaviva wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the "referendum" was meaningless and had no effect on the peninsula's sovereignty. Which since 1991 has been and remains Ukrainian.

my question was rhetorical. it is nonsense to say it was sovereign and at the same time belongs to ukraine since 1991 what it is, is an occupied territory of ukraine fully controlled by russia with russian military on it that's whom starlink service in Crimea would benefit

I didn't say "it was sovereign" (all by itself). I referred to "its sovereignty", in terms of who it belonged to (both in 1991 and now). The two contexts are entirely different.

what it is, is an occupied territory of ukraine fully controlled by russia with russian military on it

And yet -- still entirely under Ukrainian sovereignty. It seems you're a bit unclear as to what the term means. It doesn't mean "military control".

Point mean: just because the Russian currently military sits on the Crimea, doesn't mean it's "part of Russia".

And no, it's not just a symbolic difference. It's a hugely, hugely important one.

my question was rhetorical.

Indeed, it looks like you're shooting into the wind here. I'll have to leave to explore these topics on your own.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#782

Post by jmb99 »

jrflowers wrote: post #741
jmb99 wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’ve never been, I’d recommend visiting Lake Louise in Alberta. However, when I last visited in 2019, the lake base was packed nearly shoulder to shoulder at 7am. Hiking the trail to the tea house was like walking a sidewalk in NYC at 9am, just a little rougher and steeper. I’ve heard it’s only gotten worse since Covid. Is it selfish to want to be able to enjoy one of the most beautiful spots in Canada without i…

Do you think that, if “the masses” were cut off from Lake Louise, you in particular would still be able to go to it?

Not sure honestly. I've been to lots of remote areas, only accessible by multiple days of travel on foot or canoe, so probably? But I live on the other end of the country, so the effort likely wouldn't be worthwhile if it were truly inaccessible.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#783

Post by UltraSane »

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…

"and from what I've seen from Elon—I think this attitude comes right from the top."

Yep. Tesla infamously doesn't have a Public Relations department ( I assume because he got rejected by a woman who worked there) and

“press@twitter.com now auto responds with [poop emoji],” Musk tweeted.

Ladies and gentlemen, the richest man in the world!

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#784

Post by UltraSane »

misiti3780 wrote: post #709
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is quite perceptive. Musk is a narcissist, and the driving motivators of narcissists are a bottomless need for praise and attention and contempt for others. Musk is famous for being contemptuous of his employees, and he's starting to show more and more contempt for Rest of World. Cybertruck and X both reek of it. Everyone here is assuming Musk is rational and SpaceX and Starlink will continue to develop…

how is cybertruck contemptuous lol?

It is contemptuous of all the smart people who HAD to have told Elon it was a terrible design.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#785

Post by UltraSane »

CodeArtisan wrote: post #346
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 European Union wants its own satellite network to counter Starlink. It will be build by SpaceRISE, a consortium that include Airbus, Thales, Deutsche Telekom... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRIS%C2%B2 https://www.spacerise.eu/ https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-space/iris2-s...

So between the US, the EU, and China's version of starlink how many satellites will that require? I see Starlink will use 42,000 when fully completed so that is 3 * 42,000?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#786

Post by adastra22 »

sudosysgen wrote: post #719
adastra22 wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statistics here are inverted. The main marginal cost of a launch is the risk of loss of payload which the customer must insure against. The risk of loss of payload actually goes DOWN with more launches, making costs cheaper the more a booster is reused. It’s as if your car gained value with every mile driven.

The fact that customers launching exceptionally expensive payloads (the US space force, for one) tend to demand new boosters is not consistent with this. But even then, it doesn't change that the booster has a maximum lifespan and/or eventually increasing repair and therefore depreciation - we are working on an amortized basis.

They don't anymore. They actually require the use of flight proven boosters for important payloads now. Astronauts too are usually sent up with reused boosters, for safety.

We don't know what the maximum lifespan of these boosters are. There are workhorses that have over 20 launches under their belt, and no sign of deterioration. Obviously at some point something will give, but we're not there yet.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#787

Post by adastra22 »

nordsieck wrote: post #720
adastra22 wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statistics here are inverted. The main marginal cost of a launch is the risk of loss of payload which the customer must insure against. The risk of loss of payload actually goes DOWN with more launches, making costs cheaper the more a booster is reused. It’s as if your car gained value with every mile driven.

> The risk of loss of payload actually goes DOWN with more launches, making costs cheaper the more a booster is reused. I don't think that's true. All of the F9 failures[1] have been due to the 2nd stage. And that's new every time. --- 1. CRS-7, AMOS-6, and Starlink 9-3

This furthers the point, does it not?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#788

Post by User23 »

threeseed wrote: post #176
User23 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The board at Tesla is basically Elon’s buddies. There is no oversight or independence there, they do what he wants. This is true at most companies with a competent CEO. My uncle had an inimical board that tried to remove him, but he somehow replaced them all one by one before they could. Needless to say he replaced them with people who didn't want to remove him ("buddies"; but what kind of a leader surrounds himsel…

> This is true at most companies with a competent CEO. No it's not. Competent CEOs hire boards that align with their world-view but are independent enough to provide useful advice. And almost all startup boards will have investors who definitely will not rubber stamp the sort of thing going on at Tesla.

> And almost all startup boards will have investors who definitely will not rubber stamp the sort of thing going on at Tesla.

Uh why would the Tesla board object to management creating more shareholder value than any other car company ever?

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#789

Post by 71bw »

rafram wrote: post #727
71bw wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There are virtually no unconnected places in most of Europe yet wilderness is still dangerous. eg. 50.30819551805026, 16.50959758078629

Why that example? It doesn't look very remote to me.

Sorry, forgot to add the crucial details. Such is the life while close to quitting work for the day.

The location, despite not being remote, has NO connectivity. It's the closest thing I can think of in my proximity that is completely unconnected. You're lucky to get GPRS there in terms of data, and most likely you won't even be able to place a call.[1] There is no broadband/fibre or any other sort of physical network connected to the buildings in the area.[2] The only way of connecting the place aside from Starlink that I've found is other satellite options[3], and it's most likely going to be 6 times as expensive and 50 times slower.

[1] Anegdotal evidence, based on many devices on two of Poland's most prominent carriers when it comes to infrastructure - Orange/T-Mobile (shared NetWorkS! project) and Plus [2] https://internet.gov.pl/map/?center=1839972.2603685544%3B649... [3] https://www.dostawcy-internetu.pl/Dwukierunkowy-Internet-Sat...

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#790

Post by leoh »

MaxikCZ wrote: post #721
leoh wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand how such fundamentally uneducated and unkind comments like this seem to be on nearly every HN thread these days

Because I think that "but I need a place to disconnect, I am undisciplined to do it on my own when I am under coverage" is a poor reason to justify advocating for stopping progress. Comparing it with actual drugs and calling for the same "deny this to everybody so I dont have to use my willpower, please" is what grinds my gears.

Well good for you, except for the fact that I’m not advocating that folks not have access in general.

>Comparing it with actual drugs and calling for the same "deny this to everybody so I dont have to use my willpower, please" is what grinds my gears.

I literally said this nowhere. The fact that it’s going to be difficult for a great number of individuals to disconnect from the internet _is reasonably comparable to drugs being present around an addict that is trying to quit_.

Next time I’m in the Tenderloin I’ll wander around telling people to just have will power because someone online said that’s all that’s required.

I don’t know about denying earth-wide internet access from ordinary cell phones, nor of the utility of denying you the internet; but I am fairly certain you would probably benefit from going on a well-led backpacking trip away from technology given that I doubt anyone who’s done that would continue to hold your dismissive and unkind position.

Post reply on HN