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

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941

Post by bigyabai »

mparramon wrote: post #456

Loving this, not loving the negativeness in this thread. I wonder what the negativists will say about Reflect Orbital, which uses their Eärendil space mirror to light the world. * https://www.reflectorbital.com/

Why do you see things as negativeism vs positivism? Do you not live in a world where good and evil are syncretic? That mindset is bizarre, to me.

My personal experience with Starlink is that it's an expensive LTE alternative. It's not a broadband replacement, the entire thing is pretty clearly a coverup for dual-use technology in low earth orbit:

    Starshield was adapted from the global communications network Starlink but brings additional capabilities such as target tracking, optical and radio reconnaissance, and early missile warning. [0]
Reality doesn't hinge around negativism and positivism. It's a mixture of both, it's unhealthy to pretend that technology only has positive uses and cannot ever have negative side effects.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starshield

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

#943

Post by bluegatty »

paulddraper wrote: post #940
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.

> It's just the money. Money is a materialization of human desire.

No - money it's a materialization of the expression of power. Desire is a subset of that.

The 'power' part is one of the most important things to understand.

In our every day lives, we see regular people 'creating value by working' and 'collecting money' and then 'spending according to their needs and desires'.

We see things like groceries, fuel, food - it all seems like relatively open and mostly kind of fair system - and it is, at that level.

But significant amount of wealth is accumulated into structure and by individuals that have power totally disproportinate to their value creation.

Kings of England didn't rule 'arbitrarily' - they owned most of the land - that was their power.

If you own all the land, the serfs can't escape your taxation - however you think you can create value, it will be taxed away.

Corporations have incredible economies of scale and leverage through division of labour that individuals could ever have - and - they are even 'limited liability.

We set individual up to compete against goliaths, and then give those goliaths special advantages.

'Parts of the Economy' are relatively fair, just, open etc. but much/most of it is not, it's a game of power leverage and accumulation, as it always has been. It's that part that people don't have a strong instinct for.

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

#944

Post by cortesoft »

formvoltron wrote: post #227
cortesoft wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for 99.9% of everyone else? we're good! Well Starlink has 12 million subscribers, which is already more than 0.1% of the population, so clearly you are incorrect that 99.9% of people don't want it...

12 million / 8.3 billion => 0.0014 something. so.. 0.1% turns out to be correct. honestly i made the number up and accidentally nailed it

well .0014 is 40% more than 0.001, so it isn't THAT close.

Although even if we grant you your assumption about 99.9%, doesn't this show that you can still have a business if that is true? 12 million customers is a sustainable business.

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

#945

Post by prescriptivist »

Alpha3031 wrote: post #393
prescriptivist wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more accurate description would be that starlink will become the trunk, and possibly the service. Local cell services will own the poles but will essentially provide access for starlink customers. It's not a bad business idea, actually. People pay $30-40 a line for starlink cell service, starlink provides the big pipes so to speak and splits the bill with the local companies that put up the last mile towers. In rur…

It was never necessary to run fibre to any specific individual tower. Microwave backhaul works fine of you have good coveragef the area. Less well if you don't. If cell providers wanted to put up enough towers that's a self solving problem.

I live in the land of trees (Maine) and cell service sucks, line of sight between microwave towers is a non-starter AFAICT, but line of sight to the sky is do-able everywhere.

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

#946

Post by m463 »

spwa4 wrote: post #74
m463 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

one difference is that fiber isn't mobile. Though all these satellites might give fixed-location folks higher bandwidth, they could also service many more concurrent mobile customers. Connectivity would probably be better too because more satellites would be in view. Also, don't underestimate the benefit of robust competition, even if you don't use starlink.

The price difference for mobile satellite service is rather substantial though.

It might come down with more satellites and more breaking up service into different levels.

Imagine a cheap emergency-text-message level of service (like apple has, or maybe the garmin inreach type service). Then a compete-with-cellular cheap version for limited cellular service. Then a car service (premium-connectivity+satellite). then on up to residential broadband.

also, with more satellites might come the ability to talk to each other laterally, more load balancing and fewer ground stations. might be drive prices down.

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

#947

Post by Dig1t »

dash2 wrote: post #898
Dig1t wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

By this logic we should also enjoy every time someone puts a motorway through woodland. Just look at the human achievement embodied in all that concrete!

Well some creations are more marvelous than others, maybe you wouldn’t find a concrete road beautiful or interesting, though arguably you totally could (many people still to this day find the enduring road/aqueduct infrastructure of Ancient Rome to be beautiful and inspiring), but looking at a city skyline with massive skyscrapers and intricate infrastructure is very inspiring.

Humans are capable of incredible feats of engineering and many man-made things are extremely inspiring.

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

#948

Post by Dig1t »

digitaltrees wrote: post #887
Dig1t wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I am a progressive. But ownership of the commons is something that requires careful policy decisions. The same applies to utilities, the open ocean, wireless spectrum. We shouldn’t allow monopolies in the name of progress or the monopolistic rent seeking will stifle progress. The government could have absolutely done all of this and more if there was any commitment to the investment. Instead nasa had its budget gutte…

>The government could have absolutely done all of this

Yeah they totally could have, so why didn’t they? World governments have had massive budgets for space agencies for like 70 years, yet they were never able to build reusable rockets or do anything other than send a handful of extremely overpriced novelty science projects into space.

You say they could do it, but there’s no evidence to support that they ever actually would.

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

#949

Post by digitaltrees »

electriclove wrote: post #880
digitaltrees wrote: post #867

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t say I am against change. I said I am against one man owning a monopoly on a common good. If technological progress requires monopolies and the road toward serfdom is that really a path we want?

There are other companies who have also begun and there will other countries doing it as well.

That’s good. But we are a long way from a competitive market.

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

#950

Post by digitaltrees »

Dig1t wrote: post #948
digitaltrees wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a progressive. But ownership of the commons is something that requires careful policy decisions. The same applies to utilities, the open ocean, wireless spectrum. We shouldn’t allow monopolies in the name of progress or the monopolistic rent seeking will stifle progress. The government could have absolutely done all of this and more if there was any commitment to the investment. Instead nasa had its budget gutte…

>The government could have absolutely done all of this Yeah they totally could have, so why didn’t they? World governments have had massive budgets for space agencies for like 70 years, yet they were never able to build reusable rockets or do anything other than send a handful of extremely overpriced novelty science projects into space. You say they could do it, but there’s no evidence to support that they ever actua…

The space shuttle was reusable.

No private company would have been able to bootstrap the basic research upon which spaceX is now building its business.

The government isn’t a commercial for profit enterprise. It serves a different function, specifically providing services for which markets won’t be functional like fire departments, policing, broad categories of infrastructure.

And your argument is a distraction. Just because government doesn’t do something well doesn’t justify granting a monopoly to a private actor. And if a monopoly is necessary then it should be a regulated utility like power generation, telecom etc.

Post reply on HN