One to two Starlink satellites are falling back to Earth each day • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by Fischgericht » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:27 AM UTC

inemesitaffia wrote: post #275

Fischgericht wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 K…

You are aware that you are giving more weight to photos done of a powerpoint presentation over actual data points?

Sorry, that's not a path I am willing to follow. Religion is not my cup of tea.

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

#282

Post by inemesitaffia » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:28 AM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #43

bryanlarsen wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reported cash flow positive. "Cash flow positive" is a much stronger statement than "profitable" because it doesn't let you play games with amortization. So it included the ongoing cost of replacing satellites plus 100% costs of putting up new ones for future use where normal accounting would allow you to amortize those costs. SpaceX is obviously quite profitable. They're obviously spending many billions annuall…

Starlink is operated by Starlink Services, LLC which allows SpaceX to play all sorts of accounting tricks by mixing in engineered contracts with SpaceX.

The money has to show up somewhere.

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

#283

Post by inemesitaffia » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:29 AM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #144

josefritzishere wrote: post #29

I am not convinced that Starlink will continue to exist long term. They reported break even in 2023 but I don't think that included the ongoing cost of replacing satillites.

Starlink has to continue existing. That's how SpaceX justifies its launch capabilities. Their strategy of using assembly line techniques to build reusable rockets make no sense unless there is a lot of stuff to launch. Satellites are crazy expensive, and the launch represents only a smaller part of the total budget, so even if the launch was free, there is only so much demand. Starlink is more than half of SpaceX lau…

SpaceX was a top launch company pre Starlink.

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

#284

Post by Fischgericht » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:36 AM UTC

inemesitaffia wrote: post #278

Fischgericht wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

And this link form wired is about something completely unrelated - getting more stable coverage by using multiple different providers. It does not even mention Lasers.

You also clearly do not know what Layer 2 on the ISO/OSI model is.

But you are in total rage mode.

Triggered because the actual data invalidates what your cult says? :)

Sorry, will ignore you from now on. Again: Religion is not my cup of tea, bold claims on powerpoint presentations neither, I prefer to use data. We simply do not share a model of the world that is compatible to discuss these kind of things. No harm done, but no thank you :)

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

#285

Post by inemesitaffia » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:38 AM UTC

Fischgericht wrote: post #281

inemesitaffia wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 K…

You are aware that you are giving more weight to photos done of a powerpoint presentation over actual data points? Sorry, that's not a path I am willing to follow. Religion is not my cup of tea.

I've given you links to the data you want and someone that can get it for you (and has monitoring stations).

I've also mentioned several places you can travel to do your own testing.

If you want to believe Tristan de Cunha or the Falkland Islands or Bhutan or Antarctica can be served by anything other than lasers, (get a map) I don't know what else to call that but religion.

I'm not giving more weight to anything. I've pointed you in the right direction but I don't think even internal tools from SpaceX would change your mind even though geography should be enough.

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

#286

Post by inemesitaffia » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:42 AM UTC

Fischgericht wrote: post #226

Fischgericht wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are very wrong here: Right now Starlink claims to be operating a mesh, but they are not. If they would want to build a mesh, Inter-sat links for NOT be used used to pipe through bandwidth to the "best" base station. It would be used for shared state to be able to prepare a handover. Synching state obviously is much easier and more stable if the neighboring sats can talk directly, instead of sharing it over their…

Can not reply to your anymore, guess we are nested too deep now? I think we are simply talking about two different things here. I mentioned 802.11r not due to the key exchange implementation details, but to point to the general point: Seamless handover requires shared state between cells. This is not about static vs dynamic routing, you are thinking on the wrong layer here. We are in L1+L2 land. On Starlink, the last…

>steal tax money

I just realized you're trolling.

Have a great day.

>It's very hard to find positive reviews that haven't been paid for.

You could try contacting people in places where it's pretty much the main/a major provider.

Kiribati, Galapagos, Iqaluit, Ukraine, Pikangikum, Vanuatu, Falklands

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

#287

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:45 AM UTC

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…

> Maybe because v1 and v2 did not even have working lasers on the hardware level...?

Did those islands have Starlink until lasers?

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

#288

Post by JumpCrisscross » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:47 AM UTC

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]

> It's well established these oxides lead to degradation of the ozone layer, are you disputing that fact?

“The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9 to 22 mi) above Earth” [1]. Satellites break up around 75 km AGL [2], with most burning up “between 60 and 80 kilometers (37–50 miles)” [3].

So Idk! I don’t think anyone else does—these seem to be novel nanoparticles. We need to study it. If it’s a problem, that’s solvable—carbon composite satellite structuring could use funding. What we can’t do is just assume it’s terrible because items novel because that basically precludes space flight.

> Do you always have a meltdown whenever someone brings up something that upsets your worldview?

Happy to unflag once this unnecessary bit is removed.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

[2] https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/Space_debris_fe...

[3] https://www.thedefensenews.com/news-details/Can-We-Solve-the...

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

#289

Post by inemesitaffia » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:49 AM UTC

Fischgericht wrote: post #284

inemesitaffia wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

And this link form wired is about something completely unrelated - getting more stable coverage by using multiple different providers. It does not even mention Lasers. You also clearly do not know what Layer 2 on the ISO/OSI model is. But you are in total rage mode. Triggered because the actual data invalidates what your cult says? :) Sorry, will ignore you from now on. Again: Religion is not my cup of tea, bold clai…

You can't get service to them on Starlink without lasers.

I gave you more than one link. I gave you an email to a prof.

I started working at a Telco at 13 and got my CCNA there ages ago within a summer break.

You've demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic geography.

Go get your money back from your tutors.

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

#290

Post by inemesitaffia » Tue, Oct 07, 2025, 2:50 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #287

Fischgericht wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Maybe because v1 and v2 did not even have working lasers on the hardware level...? Did those islands have Starlink until lasers?

He's pretending not to understand geography or distances.

I'm very fascinated especially given the existence of community gateways on several islands that can only be served by lasers regardless of the presence of ground stations.