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

931–940 of 1001 posts

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

#931

Post by advael »

bell-cot wrote: post #648
advael wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't speak to the world as a whole but the US has we spent 50 years gutting most government functions that aren't part of the police/military/surveillance apparatus (and many of those as well). SpaceX itself is an example of the primary mechanism of this: Diverting funding to private, no-bid contracts that remove both market forces and democratic oversight from those services while also ballooning their costs

While there's a lot of truth to your "gutting most gov't functions" claim, you might want to compare SpaceX's subsidies and launch costs with those of the gov't's traditional providers. And look at myriad $billions that have been squandered on the Senate Launch System. There are plenty of solid reasons to despise Elon - no need for counterfactuals.

I would rather things like internet not be provided by entities that are incentivised by profits, controlled by one or a few individuals, none of whom are publicly accountable. I am actually willing to tolerate some inefficiency for the upsides of that tradeoff, but I think lots of governments manage to do utilities competently, too

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

#932

Post by digitaltrees »

bilsbie wrote: post #612
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’s adorable you think the government represents the people.

There is a lot to criticize about governments. And there are many bad ones. But structurally a corporation has no obligation to represent society, government does.

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

#933

Post by alden5 »

baranul wrote: post #347

At 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.

The thing that's also not grasped is because of the low earth orbit nature of these satellites they eventually succumb to drag and only have a useful lifespan of ~5 years. Using that and 100,000 satellites that means the constellation will take ~54 satellites/day to maintain, they're also quoted as being 2 tons which about the weight of a Sedan/SUV. Reframing it it's like if Comcast had to crash 54 supercars into a brick wall everyday to keep their infrastructure up and all that material also got dispersed throughout the atmosphere. SpaceX is already making/launching ~10 satellites a day and metaphorically crashing them into a brick wall, the wall is just ~5 years away.

Humans have been around for a long time but also don't live very long, but to sustain this internet infrastructure for an average person's lifespan it'd take ~16 replacement cycles. In terms of human civilization timescales this infrastructure cant/won't be sustainable for very long. Personal opinion but I think we should figure out how to run network cables to remote places better, we managed to do it with gas and electricity.

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

#934

Post by stevenhuang »

gunapologist99 wrote: post #875
stringfood wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but is providing access to internet for billions of people worth not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night? I say yes, but only just barely

Rather than deciding for them from your bubble of privilege in your fiber-connected utopia, you could just ask these poorer countries if it is worth trading global full, high-speed internet access for "not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night". Or just watch what they do when presented with the choice.

That you would think to ask this shows how out of touch you are.

The vast majority of people wouldn't think twice if that was the trade-off to get connected.

We should be talking instead of governmental oversight, and whether it makes sense to restrict/regulate satellite constellations for science or culture activities.

I think there should be regulation, but clearly the people and the market wants this, so it's going to happen.

And there is regulation. SpaceX works with astronomers and their satellites are coated to reduce glare and use of sun visors for example.

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

#935

Post by westurner »

westurner wrote: post #839
fragmede wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing with that kind of reach on licensed bands for that kind of money with that sort of bandwidth.

Metrics for comparison? - dollars/gigabit/time - dollars/bits/distance/time

- channel efficiency metrics in signals

- CapEx, OpEx, Effective Throughput (bits/time), Propagation Latency,

- (Cost_carbon + (Cost_kerosene||Cost_methane||Cost_hydrogen) + Cost_debris_atmosphere + Cost_debris_orbital + Cost_atmospheric_drag + Cost_jetstream_breakdown + Cost_atmospheric_heat)

- Total Cost per Exabyte-Kilometer ($/Exabyte-km)

- Total Cost per bit km

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

#936

Post by switchbak »

highfrequency wrote: post #232
switchbak wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Remote areas” make up most of the world.

Weighting by population seems reasonable here!

I think when it comes to watching the night sky, weighing to populated areas isn't necessarily right. It's not like you should value rural folks' view of the night sky less.

Paraphrasing (strawmanning?) the original - it doesn't matter if StarLink has ruined the night sky if city dwellers can't see the it. Well, I believe it still matters a lot. And we're still talking about nearly 1/2 the world population here.

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

#937

Post by torpid »

odie5533 wrote: post #844
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…

I believe he said Teslas are meant to appreciate in value too because you get income from renting them out when you're not using your car. They'll just drive around and work as a taxi while you're not using it. He's more sci-fi author than CEO at this point.

Turo (then Relayrides) partned with GM to allow you to rent your own vehicle out while you were at work or anywhere, so it's not science fiction, it was done back in 2012 and the concept was the same, your vehicle will help pay for itself.

Every mile logged by autonomous driving, every accident caused by a human vs autonomous vehicle where the human is at fault, will make insurance companies price risks accordingly. So far, autonomous vehilces doing very well in the cities where they operate.

It's inevitable these two concepts will merge, and it solves many problems with lack of access to affordable transportation especially for those who can't drive. Public transportation can't survive on fixed route, major infrastructure spends like rail and bus and meet the needs of the greatest number of people.

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

#938

Post by paulddraper »

DemocracyFTW2 wrote: post #859
rayiner wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? R…

> literally raping the planet

Explanation needed.

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

#939

Post by bluegatty »

beanjuiceII wrote: post #869
bluegatty wrote: post #841

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not really moving forward, it's just a traffic jam and pollution in an otherwise pristine space - for money. It's just the money. If we were actually going to Mars, then yes, but somehow he made himself the 'First Trillionaire' - without even so much as getting out of Earth's orbit. This is NFT progress, in that, there is some plausible economic value in NFTs, but in reality, it's just a hustle.

hey mom wants you to get off the couch and come for dinner, meatloaf is ready

Ok ... but you have to at least try be funny!

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

#940

Post by paulddraper »

bluegatty wrote: post #841
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…

No, this is not really moving forward, it's just a traffic jam and pollution in an otherwise pristine space - for money. It's just the money. If we were actually going to Mars, then yes, but somehow he made himself the 'First Trillionaire' - without even so much as getting out of Earth's orbit. This is NFT progress, in that, there is some plausible economic value in NFTs, but in reality, it's just a hustle.

> It's just the money.

Money is a materialization of human desire.

Post reply on HN