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

271–280 of 347 posts

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

#271

Post by skatingaway »

perihelions wrote: post #164
benjiro wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (They’re currently “around 260 and 310 kilograms” [2].) v1.5 is like 300kg, the v2.0 mini (ironic as its far from mini compared to its predecessors) are 800kg. The V3's are the one's that need StarShip to deploy. But the current launch platform can take 21x v2.0 Mini's per launch vs the 60x v1.5's they did before. Taking in account that the v2.0 Mini's are way more capably on a kg/capacity. And the tech keeps getti…

> "SpaceX does not really need Starship, that is more or less a bonus at this point." Starship is the moat SpaceX needs to be developing today to stay ahead of where the Chinese competition will be in 5-10 years.

Moats are for direct competition. China is not a competitor to spacex because the US government is spacex’s largest subsidy/customer. Put another way: nasa won’t be using Chinese rockets. Unless they bribe trump. Which could happen.

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

#272

Post by inemesitaffia »

chermi wrote: post #257
runarberg wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don‘t follow how that is the conclusion, nor do I understand your analogy. Broadband internet via cables, fiber optics, and radio towers is state of the art in telecommunication infrastructure. Satellite is both slower, more limited, and more prone to various disruptions. The capabilities of the wires and the radio towers is also improving. 5 years ago we didn’t have 5G towers, and 20 years ago fiber optics seemed…

"The only thing freezing traditional telecommunication infrastructure in place are dreams of low earth orbit satellites which will never materialize." Do you truly believe this statement, literally?

Their problem isn't LEO.

If SpaceX sells Starlink to Amazon and buys Corning, Ciena and Nokia, they'll be extolling the virtues of LEO Megaconstellations

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

#273

Post by Fischgericht »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #260
Fischgericht wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is an example thread of someone having done the measurements of v3 vs mini: https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/1eg4e4d/starlink_... Have a look at the downtimes of the system. A simple way to verify that their inter-sat links are not working and/or are not used is to simply sit and wait: If you are switched from one Sat to the next, you get new "session" and previous NAT state is lost. If this would be a…

This is ridiculous. How's service delivered to the South Pole? Iqaluit? As long as your traffic is terminated at the same POP, you won't get any session terminations. And Starlink tells you when your public IP changes anyway

Erm. That person has posted a detailed explanation on how he has measured.

How can this be ridiculous? Is it ridiculous because the data does not match your believes...? Confirmation bias?

It's Data. And it hints, amongst other things that they have seen the same that I am seeing on every single Starlink installation I got my hands on so far: There is no active handover, and no shared state between Sats.

And you are referring to the wrong layer, talking about the ground station. Of course that does not move, and does not forget about your IP. Wrong layer.

It's about the Satellites (!) not doing an active handover and not sharing L2 state, like it would the case for any meshed network, no matter if cellular or WiFi. The analogy here would be a WiFi access point or a cell tower, and you roaming from one to the next while having a phone call, not having any drop-outs. That's the industry standard for Wireless. Starlink isn't there (yet).

If you don't think that true data is true, check ARP table of the MAC of your gateway IP changing after handover.

You appear to be a happy Starlink user - so do you care to share some 24h benchmark with us to prove your claims? I would highly appreciate that!

So far sadly none of the "But it works!" people has been able or willing to provide a benchmark on their own setup. `

Again: I am not here to win and argument. But to change my conclusions, I need data that hints at my conclusions potentially being wrong. As explained elsewhere in this thread, due to lack of serious benchmarks, most of this is based on anecdotical data points.

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

#274

Post by quotemstr »

ecommerceguy wrote: post #266
quotemstr wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're doing the same thing? Either make a meaningful argument or stop insinuating through omission that there's a real problem here. You're not only insulting the intelligence of your readers but also, thereby, undermining your cause. The article you linked is garbage. Its authors find (of course not controlling for multiple comparisons) an effect that looks statistically significant if you p-hack it just right,…

[flagged]

> dissipated in the atmosphere...an obvious lie

What do you think the word "dissipates" means? Antimatter annihilation? Some other mass to energy conversion? That atoms making up re-entering satellites obviously aren't going to disappear.

> Since when did pollution from fires become a controversial topic?

"Fires"?

This whole discussion is like people with a hatred of religion going around saying we have to abolish the Catholic Church because votive candles produce soot. A study showing that would not motivated by earnest and dispassionate scientific curiosity about the laws of the universe, but by a desire to achieve a political end.

The public should fund foundational research, not partisan apologetics.

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

#275

Post by inemesitaffia »

Fischgericht wrote: post #267
inemesitaffia wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An even simpler answer is Starlink is available in locations too far from ground stations. Ergo they are served via laser. Cook Island Ascension Island Iran Venezuela Cuba Galapagos/Easter Islands Vanuatu Eastern Ukraine Syria Lebanon Iraq Iqaluit Antarctica, as South as the South Pole Tristan de Cunha The range of the ground stations are under 1500 miles and I really don't know where people are getting the idea that…

"The range of the ground stations are under 1500 miles and I really don't know where people are getting the idea that the lasers don't work." Maybe because v1 and v2 did not even have working lasers on the hardware level...? The idea is coming from "reality", Starlinks own reporting, industry talks, tech press etc. Anyway, to shorten this we can agree that we have different definitions of what one expects from having…

I've pointed out where you can get the data from a professor.

You can also fly to one of the many Islands (or Iqaluit) I've mentioned and do your testing.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlinks-laser-system-is-beaming...

It's quite fascinating, there's people who's only (or first) experience with Starlink is via lasers and there's people on the Internet who'll tell you it doesn't work (I forgot to mention Georgia and Kazakhstan)

You really will hear everything on the Internet.

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

#276

Post by marcus_holmes »

gambiting wrote: post #222
HanClinto wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because providing infrastructure to remote regions is incredibly difficult through other mechanisms. I don't believe it's hyperbole to say that -- for the goal of improving infrastructure access in some of the most remote and challenging places in the world -- Starlink in particular is one of the most successful pro-humanitarian engineering projects that I can think of in maybe the last 20 years. Starlink is easily o…

>>Starlink in particular is one of the most successful pro-humanitarian engineering projects that I can think of in maybe the last 20 years. Better than gates' effort to eradicate malaria? Sorry to be snarky, but to me Starlink is something rich people in rural England have, because it's slightly easier than paying OpenReach to connect them to proper network. And it's hard to imagine anyone else being their clients,…

Come to Australia, see the remote communities that were abandoned by NBN (well, gaslit and then completely screwed by Murdoch manipulating Abbot to sabotage the NBN). Starlink is literally a lifesaver for them.

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

#277

Post by marcus_holmes »

skatingaway wrote: post #271
perihelions wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "SpaceX does not really need Starship, that is more or less a bonus at this point." Starship is the moat SpaceX needs to be developing today to stay ahead of where the Chinese competition will be in 5-10 years.

Moats are for direct competition. China is not a competitor to spacex because the US government is spacex’s largest subsidy/customer. Put another way: nasa won’t be using Chinese rockets. Unless they bribe trump. Which could happen.

NASA ended up using Russian rockets because the Space Shuttle program got politically awkward. There is definitely a world where they'd use Chinese rockets.

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

#278

Post by inemesitaffia »

Fischgericht wrote: post #273
inemesitaffia wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is ridiculous. How's service delivered to the South Pole? Iqaluit? As long as your traffic is terminated at the same POP, you won't get any session terminations. And Starlink tells you when your public IP changes anyway

Erm. That person has posted a detailed explanation on how he has measured. How can this be ridiculous? Is it ridiculous because the data does not match your believes...? Confirmation bias? It's Data. And it hints, amongst other things that they have seen the same that I am seeing on every single Starlink installation I got my hands on so far: There is no active handover, and no shared state between Sats. And you are…

There's lots of users in laser only areas doing RTC via VOIP or video. Some of them on Ships in the Persian Gulf (look up SEA-2. https://www.wired.com/story/us-navy-starlink-sea2/)

That person has posted an install in a moving vehicle with the antenna inside.

Do you think I can't read or what?

The ground stations don't handle user IP addresses or even IP packets.

They are strictly layer 2 from the user perspective and traffic is terminated at POP's.

Here's a scientist that does actual work, not the nonsense you've been posting as "data".

https://www.reddit.com/user/panuvic/submitted/

I gave you his email.

I've pointed out to you where you can travel to test laser service yourself.

I'm not saying "but it works"

I pointed out to you places that can't be served without laser connectivity.

It's like asking me to prove the earth isn't flat.

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

#279

Post by inemesitaffia »

Fischgericht wrote: post #138
wmf wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gimme your source URL, please. As others have pointed out already in this thread: No serious analyst and not even Starlink themselves have claimed to be profitable. They have claimed to be operationally profitable. This means that the cost of operating the sats is lower than the revenue they make. It does leave out all other cost. Yes, if they could build and launch the Sats for free instead of ~$2 million per piece,…

Top ISP in USA

https://www.pcmag.com/articles/best-isps-2025

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

#280

Post by inemesitaffia »

TheAlchemist wrote: post #239
lxgr wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does a stock market bubble have to do with the profitability (i.e. not the valuation) of any given company? Are you arguing that the demand in Internet connectivity in rural/remote areas is somehow caused by an investment bubble as opposed to a long-term stable need?

No, I don't think there is any relationship there. I'm saying that I highly doubt the real profitability of SpaceX / Starlink, and we will only see if it's really as good as they say, once the bubble pops and there is no inifinite capital, and maybe some accountability.

They aren't raising money.

What's there to pop?

Post reply on HN