Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

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

#331

Post by afavour »

dtagames wrote: post #299
afavour wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that while Starlink is a technical innovation its primary benefit is as a political innovation: it lets you sidestep a lot of politics. Rural communities in the US should have high speed internet, just like efforts were made to give them electricity back in the day. But the layers of politics and dysfunction in the way are deep.

If we can get internet from the sky, it's hard to justify digging up the earth with cables for the same thing. I realize Space X "pollutes" space and astronomy is also important, but it's not more important than communications and information for people on earth.

I disagree, maintaining a giant fleet of satellites is almost certainly more expensive in the long run than just running a lot of cable. Not that cable doesn’t need maintenance but Starlink needs to replace every satellite every five years. And they can’t recycle a thing, they just burn up.

You’re presenting a false choice. It isn’t “Starlink or no internet”, it’s “why not other internet options?”

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

#332

Post by clumsysmurf »

jws wrote: post #249
senderista wrote: post #206

Will this be the last generation to remember the night sky?

I may have blown the math, but the last time I calculated I figured there were about 35 Starlink satellites above the horizon at my latitude. Looking into the suburban early night sky I see zero, one, or two satellites with about equal probability. I think the hypothesis this leads to is that the "don't shine" techniques Starlink is using are working. I'm guessing the ones I see are either not Starlink or are Starlin…

I'm in a heavily light polluted city (Phoenix) and even with all the air and light pollution, can still see satellites every moment past 2AM to the east. At least this time of year.

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

#333

Post by bamboozled »

Cyberdog wrote: post #312
oceanplexian wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will sending bits to space and back really be faster than fiber? How?

With positive thinking and maximum upside ?

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

#334

Post by aidenn0 »

t-writescode wrote: post #136
rush86999 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has a huge microwave to destroy any kind of Starlink over its head.

Citation Needed. The specifics of an implementation of this are objectively absurd. Power requirements alone make this a non-starter. If that weren’t enough, it would be a declaration of war.

Not to mention they are spending an awful lot of money on developing anti-satellite missiles for having a working directed-energy weapon that can do the same.

I'm sure they are experimenting with directed-energy ASAT technology though, because why wouldn't they?

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

#335

Post by Noaidi »

prescriptivist wrote: post #314
Noaidi wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd love to be rid of all of it, but that's not how the world works today. Why do we think the human made world is out of our control? Learned helplessness? We could stop this. We do not need Satrlink. Starlink will fail. And this will be more likely the more satellites they put up[1][2]. Or the more wars we get in. It will not be hard to cause a major destruction of all Starlink satellites [3]. [1] https://outersp…

If you wish to stop it, then stop it.

I can’t stop. We can stop it.

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

#336

Post by SilverSlash »

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.

One place where fiber cables cannot reach would be... way up in the air. Think about how many people fly each day and then remember how poor internet connectivity and speeds are at 40,000 ft.

So Starlink in flights seems like a perfect fit.

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

#337

Post by giancarlostoro »

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.

People who live out in rural areas. Think farmers, or just people who love living out on their own lands, common enough in the US. I have a friend who lives off Starlink internet, it would cost way too much to get internet all the way to his property, not really worth it.

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

#338

Post by davrosthedalek »

Cyberdog wrote: post #312
oceanplexian wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Will sending bits to space and back really be faster than fiber? How?

Lightspeed in air is close to c_vacuum. Light speed in fiber is roughly 2/3 c_vacuum. So for transatlantic it might be faster.

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

#339

Post by ssl-3 »

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.

I have a good friend who relies upon Starlink for connectivity for his home in southeastern Ohio (USA).

We've worked through all of the other alternatives there, including using cellular modems with directional antennas mounted up high on a mast pipe and multi-carrier aggregation tricks like Speedify. There is no local WISP serving the area, no fiber, no coax for DOCSIS, and xDSL is either a bad joke, basically basically abandoned, or both in much of the US in 2026.

So far, Starlink is the win.

(I'm pleased to hear that things are better than that for you in your neck of the woods.)

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

#340

Post by mullingitover »

Baeocystin wrote: post #208
mullingitover wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crazy, I didn't realize starlink is in the gigabit range for bandwidth? And how are they getting past the speed of light wall on their latency?

They aren't, at least not yet. It's more a reflection of how bad internet service is in places you wouldn't think it would be, at least here in the states. My as-advertised gigabit cable service slows to an utter crawl around Netflix O'Clock, And multi-hour+ outages are a regular occurrence. Regarding latency, starlink satellites are low enough that it just isn't an issue.

I had a hilarious interaction with a Spectrum technician when I was dealing with an oversubscribed node with my home service (same issue you're describing here).

He was a line tech and was fully aware that my slowness wasn't related to the line, and as he replaced all the lines to my house he enthusiastically recommended that I report the company to the FTC and demand a refund for the service degradation which wasn't meeting their advertised speeds. He actually gave me great advice for getting my case escalated and I was refunded for several months on my service.

They eventually got the node upgraded (I was once struggling to get 60Mbps down on the same line I'm getting >1G on today), and they're upgrading everything to DOCSIS 4.0 currently. I'm not trying to sell you on them, just saying they'll likely work their problems out in the long run. Fundamentally, coax line connection's floor is Starlink's ceiling as long as the nodes are able to keep up.

Post reply on HN