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

One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

earthsky.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 347 posts

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#101

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Fischgericht wrote: post #66

[Disclaimer: Not a hater, just a Nerd looking at data.] And just as Tesla's stock goes up whenever there are reports about them no longer selling cars, or being years behind on self-driving tech and robotics... if Starlink would be publicly traded, their stock would now shoot way up. On a more serious note: If analysts would do their job, they could have found out years ago that Starlink will never ever be profitable…

> "But why are you only assuming a usage time of 3 years?"

Your entire analysis rests on this point, which you fail to demonstrate. (You also cite zero sources, which isn't encouraging.)

(EDIT: This assumption is conservative, but reasonable.)

Was this AI generated?

> The cable itself costs virtually nothing

Did you attempt to look up the cost of laying new fibre trunk?

> due to their Satellites now being massively overbooked, speeds went down months to months

Then this isn't a remote location. Starlink's economics have been pretty obvious for anyone who has been on a plane, boat or train in the last decade. They're also terrifically useful for remote mining, observation and military operations.

> people noticed that it is actually cheaper to run 10 KILOMETERS / 6 Miles of Fiber cable through the jungle

Well sure, if you ignore negative exernalities a lot of stuff is cheap.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#102

Post by nicce »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93
nicce wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Kessler cascades are localised to specific orbits. In low-earth orbit, they're a problem for a few years. > They're going to be annoying. But not catastrophic. I think there is a misunderstanding about the whole term. If it is not a big problem, then it does not meet the definition. So there must be some threshold where they aren't problem. What is that threshold? Because certainly there isn't space for infinite am…

> What is that threshold? Way beyond anything we can currently achieve with current and planned launch capacity or radio technology. > that object can get destroyed; which means it will start deorbiting and with a chance to hit some other object below Got it, altitude. Yes, in theory. In practice, the odds of that happening are vanishingly low. If it did happen, the volumes we're talking about are still so big that y…

> Way beyond anything we can currently achieve with current and planned launch capacity or radio technology.

How are you so sure, when scientist have been debating this for decades?

> Got it, altitude.

Quibbling isn't an argument.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#103

Post by TheAlchemist »

Fischgericht wrote: post #66

[Disclaimer: Not a hater, just a Nerd looking at data.] And just as Tesla's stock goes up whenever there are reports about them no longer selling cars, or being years behind on self-driving tech and robotics... if Starlink would be publicly traded, their stock would now shoot way up. On a more serious note: If analysts would do their job, they could have found out years ago that Starlink will never ever be profitable…

That's also my opinion - it will probably never be profitable - it's a great product, but the economics are not right - and that's why no other provider did this (even though they have the tech).

Let's see what happens once the bubble pops.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#104

Post by wmf »

Fischgericht wrote: post #66

[Disclaimer: Not a hater, just a Nerd looking at data.] And just as Tesla's stock goes up whenever there are reports about them no longer selling cars, or being years behind on self-driving tech and robotics... if Starlink would be publicly traded, their stock would now shoot way up. On a more serious note: If analysts would do their job, they could have found out years ago that Starlink will never ever be profitable…

Analysts that I've seen estimate that Starlink is already profitable and will remain so. Unless you can explain the differences between your math and their math, this is yet another Elon-hating conspiracy theory.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#105

Post by throwzasdf »

mrguyorama wrote: post #5
trenbologna wrote: post #3

Does this create pollution? I don't think I want to inhale satellite dust.

Unfortunately right now we just don't know how it will affect things. But, it WILL affect things in climate and atmosphere. https://csl.noaa.gov/news/2025/427_0428.html "Pollution" is what this is

[dead]

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#106

Post by Veedrac »

ggreer wrote: post #42
trenbologna wrote: post #3

Does this create pollution? I don't think I want to inhale satellite dust.

Current Starlink satellites are 800-970kg[1] and 100% of their mass is vaporized on reentry, so 1-2 satellites a day would be approximately 1.5 tons per day added to the atmosphere. The atmosphere's mass is 5.15 quadrillion tons. Even if satellite vapor stayed in the atmosphere forever, it would take approximately 10,000 years before it reached 1 part per billion. So basically it's not worth worrying about. 1. https:…

This is correct from the perspective of direct health hazards, but there are still plausible risks. We know from history you don't need a lot of mass to cause global problems, if the material is catalytic.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#107

Post by throwzasdf »

Fischgericht wrote: post #66

[Disclaimer: Not a hater, just a Nerd looking at data.] And just as Tesla's stock goes up whenever there are reports about them no longer selling cars, or being years behind on self-driving tech and robotics... if Starlink would be publicly traded, their stock would now shoot way up. On a more serious note: If analysts would do their job, they could have found out years ago that Starlink will never ever be profitable…

[dead]

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#109

Post by ggoo »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #81
ggoo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific advancement has suffered from the light pollution and that advancement is a driving force behind your modern life. So you have (or will) suffer indirectly over time.

> Scientific advancement has suffered from the light pollution Has it? Destroying the Amazon destroys information. Light pollution simply raises the cost of our accessing it. I suppose one could model this out to some effect on deep-space astronomy's productivity. But if that effect is real--and I've seen zero evidence it is--the solution is a tax on satellite launches to fund more observatories.

Your response is not in good faith - this is very easy to google.

Re: One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day

#110

Post by ggoo »

loeg wrote: post #54
ggoo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific advancement has suffered from the light pollution and that advancement is a driving force behind your modern life. So you have (or will) suffer indirectly over time.

I think your attempted connection between astronomy and modern technological conveniences is pretty thin.

Does your phone have a camera on it?
Post reply on HN