131–140 of 147 posts
Soon only the super rich will have sunlight, with satellite networks blocking out the sky in other areas.
Hmm, maybe that's why he moved to Texas...
("no jury in the world will convict a baby — except maybe Texas")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go outside this evening if the sky is clear. If you're anywhere between 30 degrees and 60 degrees, there are multiple starlink satellites in your line of sight all the time. Can you point them out? No, they're invisible at their operational altitude.
Even if they weren't, we can't have everything. Do you know how crippled a huge chunk of the world's population is without robust internet access? I have two telescopes in my house and I would give up looking at the sky forever if it meant my cousin's kids got to attend Zoom class instead of having to work from take-home materials.
You've likely got mains power and probably water (Sure I know some places are off the grid competely, but it's rare). Why don't those cables have fibre along side them to connect you.
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
https://aerospace.org/reentries?field_reentry_type_target_id...
It's quite interesting how frequently Starlink satellites de-orbit (and how short a time some of them are up for) https://aerospace.org/reentries?field_reentry_type_target_id...
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 what it's worth, in order for the constellation to reach steady state the number of launches in the last month will need to be proportional to the total # of orbit. So if the constellation has 42,000 satellites and the satellites last 10 years on average (IMO that's a…
By that time they'll also have a launch vehicle capable of launching around 300 satellites in a single launch. Additionally, 42,000 was a worst case for the number needed and only if things go exceedingly well with the service. I think people quote that number too much when in reality there's likely to be under 5000 (from SpaceX at least).
Why? I think it's much more likely that they either fail, or (eventually) launch every single satellite that their licenses allow. More satellites increases the proportion of the market they can address, and if they can profitably launch a satellite, they can profitably launch a second.
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.
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.
But it does not have the costs associated with building a tower in that area.
When you look at a city from orbit, you see millions of radios all stacked on top of each other, screaming. That can never scale as well as a distributed array of towers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it does not have the costs associated with building a tower in that area.
If you're in an area where it's not worth building cell towers, then Starlink will have plenty of bandwidth... but that's not where most people live. When you look at a city from orbit, you see millions of radios all stacked on top of each other, screaming. That can never scale as well as a distributed array of towers.
Just tonight I was in the backyard with the kids when one one them yelled, “what’s that?”, pointing up. I immediately knew what it was, but just seeing that long string of satellites going by and going by and going by (it felt like it took 5 minutes for all of them to pass) was one of the most shocking things I’ve seen in the night sky (and I’ve seen some crazy stuff in my nearly 50 years). One thing I was a bit surp…
I guess you don't live on a flight path?