He really does want to speed run everything sci fi, Kessler syndrome here we come!
right panic, wrong fear
starlink are too low to cause kessler syndrome... but his starmind might
SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
381–390 of 1001 posts
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#382I just finished a long RV trip and I can tell you it's hard to underestimate the importance of internet access (which also means Wi-Fi calling and access to maps and weather) across our entire, enormous nation. It's important not only for individuals but even more for businesses. Despite cell phone company ads with handsome celebrities in the desert, cell phones actually do not work in many places. But people do need…
Once upon a time, people did long RV trips without internet access. Or even (cellular) phone access.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#383Is that because China applied to launch 200000 satellites?
Applied to who?
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#384It is incredibly stupid that this is happening instead of doing regular cable which works better and is cheaper
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, and that's great, but this is an extremely small niche case right? No one is denying that there are some cases where Starlink is amazing, but niche products don't usually command a $1T value.
Starlink is wonderful for many reasons. It allows technical folk to live wherever they’d like as long as they’re working remotely. The mobile applications, particularly in the case of airline aircraft, have also been compelling and worth a lot of money to SpaceX. Starlink has also brought broadband Internet to a vast number of people that would not have had it otherwise. This will boost the worldwide economy by an en…
> It allows technical folk to live wherever they’d like as long as they’re working remotely.
Turns out a simple water cooler technology is enough. We are all back to office because of efficiency.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#386Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#387I think the end game is convenience. Nobody really needs anything more than 200mb/s. If the average person can have their entire family stream their favorite Netflix show at the same time then that’s good enough. “Now lil Jimmy can watch it in the minivan too!”
I remember ~20 years ago upgrading my house line to get something crazy like 0.5mbs and the sales guy telling me that I didn't really need it and was wasting money upgrading from my current ~0.2mbs.
Those numbers are fudged of course, I don't remember exactly how long ago or from what to what I was upgrading. My point is that we've always been having people say you don't need faster internet. And yet, I still want, and use, faster internet. 200mbs I would consider fine. But I'd still feel the difference at 500mbs or 1gbs.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very wasteful way of getting communications to somewhat compensate the lack of competition in US telco market.
It has nothing to do with competition. You could have as many competitors as possible and no one is going to put a cell tower up in a remote location.
It has everything to do with the lack of competition. US tax payers paid $4 billion to AT&T in 2004 for fiber to -every- home. And that was never delivered, yet they keep getting more money. This is regulatory capture.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?”
A v2 Starlink satellite costs $800K and on average 25 are launched at once. Launch cost for a reusable Falcon 9 is $15 million. So that's $1.4 million per satellite to orbit lasting 5 years that's $280K / sat / y, or $2.8 billion / y to maintain a constellation of 10,000. And SpaceX is not known for complacency. The unit cost will continue to drop.
On the other hand there are currently $63 billion (22.5 years of Starlink cost) of rural broadband subsidies active in the US and it hasn't come close to running all that fiber. So $63 billion to not even finish the US vs $2.8b / y to provide service to the entire world. I think it's safe to conclude that the satellite option is in fact much cheaper.
Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth
#390At what point are people going to have a conversation about all the pollution and the consequences of so many satellites burning up (metals and other toxic stuff) in the atmosphere and fragments falling wherever. 100k... how much can we keep putting up and let keep falling around the world? Multiple other companies and countries want to do the same as SpaceX.
[flagged]
Populations are far below replacement. Degrowth is assured.