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

801–810 of 831 posts

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#801

Post by Salmonfisher11 »

spacemanspiff01 wrote: post #660
Salmonfisher11 wrote: post #643

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? 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?

The magic of the military GPS codes are AFAIR the extremely broad signals and use quasi non-repetitive codes. It's very difficult to jam and spoof.

Galileo HAS service is free for anyone to use.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#802

Post by aguaviva »

throwaway290 wrote: post #798
aguaviva wrote: post #781

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Whether to provide Crimea with Starlink or not depends on who sits there. Similar reason why all Crimeans got under sanctions immediately after annexation. Not just Starlink but every other Western company respecting sanctions stopped doing business with Crimea. Same with Donetsk and Luhansk. No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine. People care about the "effectively". Legally always depends on who you ask. Some will…

No one cares if it's "legally" Ukraine.

That's objectively just not true at all.

Legally always depends on who you ask.

Also not true at all.

Of course, you can always find people who say something wildly at odds with the overwhelming international consensus, and in any case completely lacking in any intrinsic substance.

But that doesn't mean what they're saying is even potentially valid, and that the matter "depends" on what they say.

See also: "Nothing is true" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42244709

Therefore the musk-man could not "cut out crimea".

I never said anything about Musk or Starlink. If you think I did, then we're definitely talking past each other.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#805

Post by monkeyfun »

starspangled wrote: post #711
mschuster91 wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes I think it is, and I think the rhetoric around Trump is hyperbole and fearmongering too. Well just reading through Project 2025 is very sobering. It's not like old times where what they wanted had to be read through the lines any more, it's right out in the open what they want to do - and even getting a quarter of their plans actually passed through is a very, very troubling perspective. > I thought that wheeli…

I shouldn't have brought up Trump, the subject never goes anywhere useful in an online debate. That was just my opinion, and other opinions and fears are not invalid. > > I thought that wheeling out the architects of the Iraq war to denounce Trump's corruption/incompetence/bad foreign policy/etc was particularly ironic and sad, for example, even if they might have been technically correct. > A sad consequence of peop…

I just seriously wanna praise, first without commentary, that you just said >other opinions and fears are not invalid

And then for commentary: I'm the sort of person "intense" enough that I'd want to pounce even on your comment about not bringing up trump, but that overall phrasing was such a perfect way to communicate what you mean, and your good intentions, to me when you at first read (to me) as apologist and unwarrantedly dismissive.

That's all, often in these times it feels hard to even achieve this basic level of communication across personal and political differences. I really admire it.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#806

Post by 01100011 »

robotresearcher wrote: post #744
wmf wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the same because there are plenty of companies that can manufacture cars at scale but only one company that can launch satellites cheaply. Arguably Waymo is ahead of Tesla FSD and they have access to the mature Hyundai and Zeekr supply chains.

Waymo could be much better at driving but without a low cost sensor strategy they can’t make money in a market that will immediately become commodity priced. Reaching huge scale needs the right market strategy as well as good supply chain. SpaceX has a clever strategy of exploiting their first mover advantage in cheap launch to create the first cheap satcom system. They will suck up so much of the available revenue f…

If what you are saying is true, why would Waymo not then pivot to a cheaper sensor system like Tesla? They have extensive experience with deep learning and plenty of training data. Surely this only buys Tesla a few years of lead time?

You seem to demonstrate what my point that Tesla maximalists assume a temporary lead becomes a permanent one and competitors just give up.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#807

Post by system2 »

carabiner wrote: post #760
system2 wrote: post #757

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is okay for weakminded people to not to enjoy nature. Let them suffer who cares.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#808

Post by panick21_ »

mrtksn wrote: post #20

What I wonder about the Starlink constellation is, how secure it is physically? There are people burning down 5G towers. How plausible would be for a conspiracy nut to create a rocket to take out the satellites? Maybe starting a cascading effect?

Its expensive to build rockets. Most rocket startups require at least 100 million $ to get a rocket into orbit. But a rocket into orbit is a far cry from an anti sat weapon. That technology is gone run you another 10-20 million $.

And then that kills 1 sat. SpaceX has many 1000s of sats.

So a small rocket like Electron cost around 8+ million $, lets say 6 million $ in cost. Plus lets say 1 million for the anti sat.

So you need to invest a couple 100 million $ into the development and produce many rockets. So you can calculate 7 million times * 6000, that gone be around 42 billion $.

Of course you would need to launch them from somewhere without a government that can stop you. Taking out vital infrastructure used by the US military tends to make people a bit angry. And neither China, Russia or Europe will want you anywhere close to them. This is likely gone make this much more expensive. Maybe you can make a deal with the Taliban? But they likely don't want that heat either.

So this is just a pure fantasy scenario.

> Maybe starting a cascading effect?

That's not gone happen. Far to low in orbit. As soon as they don't have propulsion they will drop lower. Until then the others can slightly raise their orbit.

There is not even a single nation state who has the capability to take out Starlink.

And no amount of people who burn down 5G towers could ever pull this off.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#809

Post by londons_explore »

punnerud wrote: post #570
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…

If China where to compete they also need LEO satellites that is just over China for a couple of minutes, that have to take a long round trip around the word to give a couple of minutes access again. That’s why you need a huge constellation. It’s either selling to the whole world or nothing. If you don’t want to go for slow GEO stationary.

I suspect a China-based constellation could probably serve most of africa, much of asia, most of south america, and some of the middle east. Maybe Russia too.

Not North America or Europe.

In fact, it probably has similar coverage population-wise to what a USA based company can offer.

Post reply on HN