SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

Post by nwah1 » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 2:12 AM UTC

oceanplexian wrote: post #234

kevinkeller wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand the huge upside for Starlink outside of Africa or India, where they have India is rapidly expanding fiber internet connectivity, even in rural areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharat_Broadband_Network In addition, 4G/5G coverage is extensive: https://www.ookla.com/articles/india-mobile-connectivity-1h2... See India in this 5G global coverage map: https://www.ookla.com/articles/5g-map-2026 The…

Starlink accounted for 69% of SpaceX revenue pre-merger and is speculated to be already profitable including launch costs. And this is all before they launch a phone or something, or replace global fiber interconnect with a lower latency space-based alternative, replace all forms of space based telecommunications (TV, Satellite Radio, etc). Starlink is a $1T+ business without even getting creative.

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 2:12 AM UTC

consumer451 wrote: post #67

0xffff2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, as one of those engineers, they ran fiber down the highway a mile from my house circa 2021, but they did not do any upgrades at all to the last mile infrastructure so I still only have a ~10Mbps DSL option for wired internet at that house, which is a big step up from literally no wired option before, but still vastly inferior to Starlink. (The terrain makes terrestrial wireless a nonstarter in the area). I…

I was only trying to talk about Starlink here, as that is what TFA is about. Starlink is AMAZING in-flight, out at sea, etc.. But since you brought it up: > Separately, from SpaceX's own prospectus, Starlink is only a tiny fraction of the overall conglomerate that went public recently. It "only" needs to support double digit billions of valuation to pull its weight inside of the company. So, where does the rest of th…

Post by kortilla » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 2:14 AM UTC

defrost wrote: post #235

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't take long exposures, the satellites won't cause you much trouble seeing the stars. Regular light pollution is the problem.

Sucks for regular astronomy then, where long exposures are the norm. Equally sucks for radio astronomy where the bloody things leak into spectrums they (Starlink) pinky promised to keep clean. And successive generations have worsened the problem, again despite promises to improve.

Post by afavour » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 2:16 AM UTC

givemeethekeys wrote: post #161

consumer451 wrote: post #5

When Starlink first became available here in poor-ish Central-EU, I was excited. Then, only months later, but after years of planning: EU funding brought fiber to my farm area, at ~$25/900mbps 10ms. While my story is just n=1, I don't understand the huge upside for Starlink outside of Africa or India, where they have However, I am dumb, and very open to be convinced.

In much of the US, internet companies run a racket. While there are often multiple providers to choose from, if you want reliable service at good speeds, you end up with two, or if you're really lucky, three options. One of those options is Starlink.

Post by tqi » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 2:17 AM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #246

defrost wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sucks for regular astronomy then, where long exposures are the norm. Equally sucks for radio astronomy where the bloody things leak into spectrums they (Starlink) pinky promised to keep clean. And successive generations have worsened the problem, again despite promises to improve.

If you have evidence of them causing interference on a spectrum they shouldn’t be on, report it to the FCC. They take that very seriously