111–120 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the info!
Absolutely! Things will be really interesting when they can use Starships to launch batches. I've seen estimates that they could launch 600 starlink satellites at a time. They could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them all the way into their final orbit, skipping the few weeks of light pollution.
I'd love to see a theatrical launch. :)
If they want to cover the entire Earth with internet access, how is it that I see them come and go in bunches rather than just a steady stream all night such that there is always at least one overhead? Having a bunch show up and disappear doesn't sound like very continuous internet access
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically, the constellation's effect on the night sky is proportional to the number of launches in the last month, not the total number in orbit. For the major brightness issues sure, but they are not invisible or undetectable while in operation. Surely the effects are proportional to both the recent launches and the whole size. I think it's a bit early to dismiss the whole sky effect of multiple Starlink-style co…
There is also the (no help at the moment) fact that the more money that Starlink's parent company makes, the more likely we are to get the world's cheapest heavy lift orbital booster soon, and the more likely we are to soon have multiple large orbital telescopes that far exceed ground-based capabilities. Basically, if SpaceX makes it, we'll probably have a Starship-launched lunar observatory quite soon, in the grand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a Starlink deposit down and I still have my doubts about the merits of that trade-off. My reasoning is amateur astronomy is ruined anyhow so I may as well be able to stream Netflix on more devices and as a side benefit tech monopolies will be able to further extend their influence. Which, frankly, feels rather sordid. And in any event Starlink is nothing compared to the assholes planning satellite billboards.
The real good that will come out of Starlink isn't from people like you and I, it'll be from people very poor countries and regions. The money you and I put into it are bootstrapping bringing Internet access to hundreds of millions who would otherwise not get it.
While I won't subscribe (I have fiber), I am excited about what this might mean for the future. It would amazing to improve the technology enough to replace 4G/5G dongles. It sounds like the technology relies on being in a somewhat fixed position though.
Starlink will never replace 4G/5G in relatively-populated areas, because any RF wizardry they can do from orbit will work even better for talking to a tower at short range.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is also the (no help at the moment) fact that the more money that Starlink's parent company makes, the more likely we are to get the world's cheapest heavy lift orbital booster soon, and the more likely we are to soon have multiple large orbital telescopes that far exceed ground-based capabilities. Basically, if SpaceX makes it, we'll probably have a Starship-launched lunar observatory quite soon, in the grand…
Would cheaper/larger launch vehicles significantly change the economics of deploying space based observatories? The James Webb space telescope has cost about $10 billion, and you can afford even today's largest/most expensive launch vehicle (Delta Heavy) for a relatively small fraction of that ($350M).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They could theatrically also launch fewer, but put them all the way into their final orbit I wonder if they might choose to do this so the sats keep more of their onboard fuel, and will be able to keep themselves in orbit a bit longer before the inevitable re-entry burn up.
Re-entry is a bit of a feature, though - should a satellite be DOA, it will be in a low orbit and burn up faster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly do you need a citation for? The starlink antenna is a $499, and the subscription is $99 a month. That's extremely expensive for internet, I'd only consider this if there was literally nothing else available. So yes, it will be bought by wealthy people who live out in the sticks, because if you're not from a wealthy nation and quite comfortable financially yourself, then $99/month is crazy high. I guess c…
> The starlink antenna is a $499, and the subscription is $99 a month. So your whole argument on pricing is based on a beta product with limited availability currently. Because prices have never dropped significantly once the product has actually reached mass market adoption?
To the contrary, as more subscribers join the service, satellite throughput capacities will eventually be saturated and will require more satellites or more advanced and powerful satellites.
Meanwhile, constant replenishment of the orbital network means that it's not a build-and-amortise asset. There's not a point at which revenue pays-off the asset and can sustain a reduction in subscription fees.