Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a Space-Based ISP

stackoverflow.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#41

Post by azernik »

HALtheWise wrote: post #22
azernik wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially: They have one address range for shared (i.e. subject to syncing across all replicas) memory, and a separate one for non-shared (single-replica) memory. Cross-replica data is presumably subject to their agreement algorithm, checking that the different computers reach the same (within some error bars) results; you want to arrange things so that there are frequent checkpoints at which the conflict resolutio…

That makes sense. One part I'm still not clear on is how you accomplish a "restore" to fix the broken state of a process with a bitflip. Is it enough to simply copy all the shared state memory over as a block and jump into executing it? That seems like it would require the invariant that shared memory never references private memory, and I'm not sure how to statically enforce that.

"Restore" is reboot. Usually these are called "watchdog circuits", which you may have heard of from more mundane embedded applications.

Once you've rebooted, yeah, you need to copy over the shared state from another of the processes.

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#42

Post by cryptonector »

ctdonath wrote: post #39
cryptonector wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear what you're saying. Are you saying that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource? Or something else? Anyways, I don't buy that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource. Even if it were so, what would be a fair way to share that resource, and who even with?! There's only one announced competitor to Starlink at this time, and they're not even remotely close to bein…

Sorry about the mess, that comment was dripping with sarcasm. 1. There's a lot of room up there, and actually claiming & using it is a normal process for civilizing frontiers. 1b. Handwaving about "underappreciated precious resources" is a waste of opportunity. I get the sentiment, but belongs in the 3rd part of the aphorism "lead, follow, or get out of the way." 2. Saying "SpaceX isn't in it for the money" is ridicu…

Thank you!

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#44

Post by lucb1e »

generalizations wrote: post #6
mnd999 wrote: post #2

Puff piece. Starlink is fundamentally not about providing broadband to anyone. It’s landgrabbing a finite resource - low-earth orbit space - before it’s worth is recognised by those who should be regulating it. The broadband itself might be nice or it might be awful. It doesn’t actually matter because that was never the point.

It's a cynical perspective, but the downvotes are unwarranted. It's worth comparing to McDonalds, where a large proportion of the corporation's worth is in the real estate they hold.

Okay but it's not as if mcdonald's bought the land under false pretenses and now uses it for any purpose since it's theirs. Claiming that the internet access is just a pretense for "land" grabbing when the company neither owns the space afterwards nor can switch businesses to something more nefarious and lucrative with the existing devices... it makes no sense.

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#45

Post by wmf »

cryptonector wrote: post #34
ctdonath wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it's not about taking a major share & expansion of a trillion-dollar industry with payout starting immediately, it's about staking out a thin fraction of (literally) empty space and waiting decades for others to start needing small portions of it. Because $99/month * 12 months * 10 years * 1,000,000,000 customers = $11.88T isn't the point to a man who literally needs a trillion dollars to pull off the grandest…

It's not clear what you're saying. Are you saying that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource? Or something else? Anyways, I don't buy that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource. Even if it were so, what would be a fair way to share that resource, and who even with?! There's only one announced competitor to Starlink at this time, and they're not even remotely close to bein…

I guess orbital space could be auctioned instead of homesteaded but SpaceX could probably afford to outbid Kepler and OneWeb anyway.

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#46

Post by cryptonector »

wmf wrote: post #45
cryptonector wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear what you're saying. Are you saying that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource? Or something else? Anyways, I don't buy that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource. Even if it were so, what would be a fair way to share that resource, and who even with?! There's only one announced competitor to Starlink at this time, and they're not even remotely close to bein…

I guess orbital space could be auctioned instead of homesteaded but SpaceX could probably afford to outbid Kepler and OneWeb anyway.

Then we get to argue whether they'd pay the U.S., the UN, or... some other entity. Naturally the U.S. gets to tax space access by U.S. businesses, but let's not kid ourselves, it'd be just a tax and wouldn't benefit the public consumer of space-based networking nor SpaceX's competitors. An auction would be a lot like a tax where you can lose the opportunity, and where the tax can be upbid a great deal.

No, sorry, I think as long as SpaceX continues to work to lower costs and increase access then to get in their way would be a terrible mistake.

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#47

Post by ctdonath »

ctdonath wrote: post #39
cryptonector wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear what you're saying. Are you saying that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource? Or something else? Anyways, I don't buy that SpaceX will end up consuming too much of a precious resource. Even if it were so, what would be a fair way to share that resource, and who even with?! There's only one announced competitor to Starlink at this time, and they're not even remotely close to bein…

Sorry about the mess, that comment was dripping with sarcasm. 1. There's a lot of room up there, and actually claiming & using it is a normal process for civilizing frontiers. 1b. Handwaving about "underappreciated precious resources" is a waste of opportunity. I get the sentiment, but belongs in the 3rd part of the aphorism "lead, follow, or get out of the way." 2. Saying "SpaceX isn't in it for the money" is ridicu…

Additional napkin math:

If we’re going to take the “precious resource” argument seriously, let’s. One Starlink satellite can earn ~$25M/year, setting the value of that slot. This seems a reasonable value for LEO “homesteading”; if someone wants it, that’s a fair price to pay. And I do mean fair, seeing as it’s SpaceX inventing the technology, building the satellites, staking claims, and otherwise being first-mover and pioneer of LEO on a colonizing scale (so to speak). That includes the value of serving 25,000 people per satellite at $100/month. Want that orbital property? pay the trailblazer that made that parcel valuable. (As for “Earth’s population has a fair share” - no, they didn’t do squat for it beyond what one was already paid for to get SX there. Anyone is free to go there now and lay claim. Government involvement should be nothing more than collecting cost of tracking claims and resolving disputes.)

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#48

Post by 3gg »

mnd999 wrote: post #2

Puff piece. Starlink is fundamentally not about providing broadband to anyone. It’s landgrabbing a finite resource - low-earth orbit space - before it’s worth is recognised by those who should be regulating it. The broadband itself might be nice or it might be awful. It doesn’t actually matter because that was never the point.

Don't know about your specific claims, but I also had the same reaction.

"This is the world SpaceX’s Starlink program, which has set a goal to provide high-speed broadband internet to locations where access has been unreliable, expensive, or completely unavailable."

Can we be honest for once and be up-front about a corporation's real goals? As if was going to do anything about the gaping inequality and other social problems that actually matter to people. That your comment gets down-voted is certainly telling about the audience here.

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#49

Post by bcrl »

jsharf wrote: post #15
mnd999 wrote: post #2

Puff piece. Starlink is fundamentally not about providing broadband to anyone. It’s landgrabbing a finite resource - low-earth orbit space - before it’s worth is recognised by those who should be regulating it. The broadband itself might be nice or it might be awful. It doesn’t actually matter because that was never the point.

The alternative is waiting literally 10-20 years for anyone else to catch up.

Who is even trying to catch up at this point?

Re: Building a Space-Based ISP

#50

Post by giantrobot »

ctdonath wrote: post #47
ctdonath wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry about the mess, that comment was dripping with sarcasm. 1. There's a lot of room up there, and actually claiming & using it is a normal process for civilizing frontiers. 1b. Handwaving about "underappreciated precious resources" is a waste of opportunity. I get the sentiment, but belongs in the 3rd part of the aphorism "lead, follow, or get out of the way." 2. Saying "SpaceX isn't in it for the money" is ridicu…

Additional napkin math: If we’re going to take the “precious resource” argument seriously, let’s. One Starlink satellite can earn ~$25M/year, setting the value of that slot. This seems a reasonable value for LEO “homesteading”; if someone wants it, that’s a fair price to pay. And I do mean fair, seeing as it’s SpaceX inventing the technology, building the satellites, staking claims, and otherwise being first-mover an…

The whole "orbital slot" thing is absurd. Space is really big. Like, really big. And orbital mechanics being what it is, you could launch a satellite in the exact same orbit as a Starlink satellite but trailing a few miles behind and they'll never impact one another. If they are using totally different uplink and downlink frequencies they'll be effectively invisible to ground stations of competing services.

That being said, your napkin math is a bit off. A single Starlink satellite isn't all that valuable. It can only talk to ground stations in some region on Earth for a short period of time. It's the dozens of satellites per plane that make the service useful (24/7 coverage). While you can divide total revenue by the number of satellites, the service only works with a complete orbital plane.

Post reply on HN