SpaceX just got FCC approval to launch 7,518 satellites

Post by HarryHirsch » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 1:24 AM UTC

bsder wrote: post #181

HarryHirsch wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back then the rocket scientists from JPL and MIT had dozens of aerospace contractors where they could go, and science would be moved forward. Nowadays, the rocket scientists join any of the dozens of hedge funds, but some go work for SpaceX. This is the stagnation of outsourcing.

> This is the stagnation of outsourcing. This is the stagnation of paying your scientists poorly. One of the reasons for so many microbreweries in San Diego was paying microbiology types so poorly. More than one microbrewer here has said: "Well, I was getting paid kinda crappy in biology. So, I started a microbrewery. Now I get paid about the same, don't have to put up with managers, and get to drink beer."

Post by buboard » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 1:29 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #25

wongarsu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Regular old satellite internet" is very high latency because it's few satellites in high orbit. SpaceX is doing many satellites in low orbit, resulting in much shorter paths and low latency. Latency for medium to long distances could be better than regular fiber, both because of straigher paths and because speed of light in the relative vacuum of the satellites' orbits is higher than speed of light in fiber. We don'…

I'd expect the first and easy goal to be to sell high speed access to airline passengers.

Post by shaklee3 » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 1:37 AM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #96

dr_orpheus wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true of the orbit that the SpaceX satellites are going in to. LEO is a bit of a general term that covers altitudes anywhere from 100 km to 2000 km. While it is true that something at 400 km altitude will deorbit in a few months, they will be orbiting at an altitude of 1100-1300 km. At that altitude it will take hundreds of years from them to deorbit. The drag goes down exponentially as you get in to highe…

SpaceX recently updated their plans to put most satellites between 300 and 400km. That ensures a quick deorbit of the satellites and debris and cuts down the ping times.

Post by shaklee3 » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 1:43 AM UTC

ryanmarsh wrote: post #76

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a ~$10 billion constellation with an individual satellite lifespan of 5 years, the system would need to average ~$170 million per month for something resembling break-even. Current US satellite internet adoption is at 6.7% percent; push that up to 10% so I have some number to work with when accounting for market penetration and the rest of the world, and you’re looking at 32.5 million users, which sets an absolut…

Current US satellite internet adoption is at 6.7% percent Current US satellite adoption doesn't matter in this case because the new product would not suck. Satellite internet is not a viable competitor today for the various reasons others have stated here. Starlink however would compete directly with my DSL service and since I (and pretty much everyone else) hate our telco, the sky is the limit as they say.

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Nov 16, 2018, 1:51 AM UTC

buboard wrote: post #213

jacquesm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd expect the first and easy goal to be to sell high speed access to airline passengers.

not easy inside a faraday cage. In fact, how does spaceX plan to deliver the internet? Would people need access to a roof antenna? That rules out a lot of use cases