SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth • Hacker News Board

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

#851

Post by Dig1t » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:10 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #835

SpaceX needs to claim there’s a need for 100k more satellites to prop up unreasonable valuations. This is no different than Elon claiming Tesla owners would be renting out their cars as FSD taxis while at work (next year, we swear guys!!!) In a functioning economy he’d have faced criminal charges for knowingly misleading investors and customers about a dozen times over by now. It’s one thing to set lofty goals intern…

Apple announced AirPower and then didn’t end up shipping it. In a “functioning economy” should Tim Cook be indicted for misleading investors? Obviously not.

The only decent argument for the criminal case you are talking about would be if it was an outright lie with no intent whatsoever to deliver on the promise, but there’s obviously a huge effort to deliver on the robotaxi promise. Just ask any of the thousands of employees who work on the Tesla robotaxi and self driving software every day, just visit Austin and observe the ubiquitous cybercabs driving around the city.

They obviously haven’t realized the dream yet but it doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually, especially when you can physically see the progress first hand.

Your argument seems mostly driven by your disagreement with the founder’s politics instead of any rational argument against their technology.

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

#852

Post by culi » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:17 PM UTC

If you think that's concerning for the nightsky, wait till China's competitor, SpaceSail, tries to catch up.

This is the problem with a private or single nation creating a system like this and then politicizing it or using it for war. It forces other nations to compete.

The night sky shouldn't belong to any individual company or nation. We should all have a say on whether this is something we're willing to give up. Including the more-than-human world

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

#853

Post by Dig1t » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

digitaltrees wrote: post #379

I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.

This is incredibly regressive thinking. Any technology or human progress changes the world around us. Do you lament the construction of new buildings or roads because they change the natural landscape? Would you prefer we never explore space or build anything new?

IMO it’s a marvel to look up at the sky and see man made objects flying through the sky, it’s incredibly inspiring to see the great feats of engineering that humans are capable of.

Also if you look up at the night sky you can still see ALL the stars, it’s just that you can now see a few extra tiny dots flying by, it subtracts nothing from the average stargazer’s view.

Your children will get much more amazing and inspiring sights from space telescopes and spacecraft that this new space industry will enable. They will benefit from new science and manufacturing techniques that are enabled by cheap access to space.

>when it’s the government

The government had a monopoly on space access for the past half century and barely managed to put a handful of extremely expensive objects in space. They were never capable of creating reusable rockets or lowering the cost of access to space in a meaningful way. Maybe it feels nicer when governments do it, but cheap access to space will never happen if they are the ones running the show.

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

#854

Post by xocnad » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #851

tw04 wrote: post #835

SpaceX needs to claim there’s a need for 100k more satellites to prop up unreasonable valuations. This is no different than Elon claiming Tesla owners would be renting out their cars as FSD taxis while at work (next year, we swear guys!!!) In a functioning economy he’d have faced criminal charges for knowingly misleading investors and customers about a dozen times over by now. It’s one thing to set lofty goals intern…

Apple announced AirPower and then didn’t end up shipping it. In a “functioning economy” should Tim Cook be indicted for misleading investors? Obviously not. The only decent argument for the criminal case you are talking about would be if it was an outright lie with no intent whatsoever to deliver on the promise, but there’s obviously a huge effort to deliver on the robotaxi promise. Just ask any of the thousands of e…

As the comment you are replying to does not, on its face, seem to have a political bia you should be explicit about where/how you identified that bias. Without this you are the one injecting politics not the OP.

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

#855

Post by DemocracyFTW2 » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:30 PM UTC

Dig1t wrote: post #851

tw04 wrote: post #835

SpaceX needs to claim there’s a need for 100k more satellites to prop up unreasonable valuations. This is no different than Elon claiming Tesla owners would be renting out their cars as FSD taxis while at work (next year, we swear guys!!!) In a functioning economy he’d have faced criminal charges for knowingly misleading investors and customers about a dozen times over by now. It’s one thing to set lofty goals intern…

Apple announced AirPower and then didn’t end up shipping it. In a “functioning economy” should Tim Cook be indicted for misleading investors? Obviously not. The only decent argument for the criminal case you are talking about would be if it was an outright lie with no intent whatsoever to deliver on the promise, but there’s obviously a huge effort to deliver on the robotaxi promise. Just ask any of the thousands of e…

> disagreement with the founder’s politics

Are you talking about the guy who did a double-down Nazi salute to celebrate Trump winning the election?

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

#856

Post by qeternity » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:34 PM UTC

andriy_koval wrote: post #522

esperent wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

what you do to fill difference between 200, 500 and 1gb?..

It's sort of amazing that people still say these sorts of things today.

I don't think it's at all inconceivable where people in the future are streaming high resolution multi modal personal sensor arrays to AI that is running in a data center...and ditto we are streaming ever more content back.

That's just the in vogue answer of 2026. There are undoubtedly endless innovations that I can't envision that will require ever more resources.

My point is just that every single "X ought to be good enough" has been proven false. And the only times where we see consumption really plateau are due to other reasons than desire (like cost).

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

#857

Post by Dig1t » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:34 PM UTC

jneaty wrote: post #602

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change is inevitable. I love seeing artificial objects in space, because it shows that we, humanity, are finally getting there. Elon doesn't own space, he just happens to be the one who is currently best at making it reachable. There is plenty of space for everyone else, and others will get there, eventually. I could eat myself up with envy over the money he's making from it... or be glad that it's at least someone g…

I wonder what you mean by "moving humanity forward". Just technological advancements without other considerations? In my opinion it should at least require reducing human suffering, and if ao he has done more harm than good

There are millions of people in Africa and rural areas around the world who have access to the internet because of these satellites. This massively reduces human suffering. Millions of people can now get medical information, farming, manufacturing techniques, talk to experts around the world. Connecting people to the wealth of human knowledge has a huge impact on reducing suffering. It also just directly saves lives by connecting people in an emergency to people who can help. Additionally, Ukraine would have lost the war a long time ago if these satellites didn’t exist. You could go on for a long time listing the ways these satellites reduce suffering.

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

#858

Post by meindnoch » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:36 PM UTC

inemesitaffia wrote: post #738

meindnoch wrote: post #550

How much does this cost? Something tells me we could have covered the planet in fibre for the price of these Starlink satellites.

SpaceX has spent under $30 billion for Starlink. That's less than maintenance opex for mobile networks operators in the US alone.

And how many people each serve?

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

#859

Post by DemocracyFTW2 » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:38 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #683

digitaltrees wrote: post #379

I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.

> It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing. I worked on technology for years that the FCC effectively killed for stupid reasons. So it’s heartening to me that someone can still just do stuff and build things. It’s amazing. If you asked me 10 years ago I would have thought that getting something like Starlink off the ground wo…

except it's not so much about do stuff and build things, it's about literally raping the planet, extorting and exploiting everyone including retirement savings, and also to "move fast and break things" which we know understand better was really meant to mean "remove accountability for the richest people", a.k.a. remove public oversight. Taxes for the poor, and the money goes to multi-billion dollar corps. Vaccines? Red tape! Safety belts? Red tape! Environmental concerns? Red tape!

And by the way this guy is responsible for the death of multiple hundred thousands deaths according to estimates. Because he championed removal of Red tape and shutdown of that allegedly "criminal organization" (his words), USAID. Tell that your children.

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

#860

Post by AlecSchueler » Sat, Jul 11, 2026, 6:41 PM UTC

trimbo wrote: post #745

AlecSchueler wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People can still "do stuff and build things" while having consideration for environmental impacts.

The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different. To one person it can mean, "don't put the construction garbage in the river." To another it can mean "not one single Delta Smelt can be scared because of this construction." And because it's so flexible, in states like California where we have aggressive environmental laws, it's leveraged as the NIMBY trump card. When it can't block a pro…

> The thing is, everyone's interpretation of "environmental impact" is different.

I know, that's why we've developed all of these systems of representation to discuss and come to reasonable regulatory standards.

But that's neither here nor there in regards to the point being made that people can still build things in a regulated environment.