461–470 of 631 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If anything they'll go for the lucrative customers that _need_ a signal to go faster through vacuum than through glass. Maybe some decent revenue offering sat to cell for the traditional carriers.
There is no workload that latency sensitive is there? If it is you just move the server where it's needed. I.e. you do HFT next to the stock exchange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey are absolutely not replacing “legacy” isps and certainly not mobile. Even if they had perfect coverage, sat signals are way too sensitive to obstructions.
No, but they are replacing bad ISPs. I have a relative in Brussels, while there is 10gig fiber on a nearby street, he's stuck on 100/10 coax, and to add insult to injury, Starlink is cheaper.
And come on 100/10 is not bad despite the other 10gig fiber
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea. It's hard to tell what's true anymore. I thought Russia would be out of resources in 3 months. It's been 4 years. I thought Rafah would survive. It's completely flattened. Thought global markets would crash after tariffs. It has survived. I'm convinced we're in some kind of propaganda machine right now.
[flagged]
SpaceX has reduced the cost of getting a ton of mass into orbit by a factor of 10 and with their new system (Starship) it's poised further reduce that to 100x. They launch, land and re-use their rockets so often now that what was considered impossible 15 years ago is now routine. They currently put more things into space than the rest of the world combined and by a huge margin. They also have the most advanced intern…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their technical accomplishments are doubtlessly notable, but does the expected business growth justify this valuation? Honest question, how many things do we really need to send up there that reducing the cost to orbit by 100x will trigger Jevon's paradox and lead to 100x more launches? I suppose "data centers in space" is the current answer but again, I'm suspicious about its feasibility. Barring that, until we have…
Starlink seems like a no-brainer at this late date, but I remember thinking "He'll never be able to make money from internet satellites. This has to be some kind of scam. Look what happened to Irridium." Data centers in orbit certainly seem like a pipe dream, but SpaceX certainly has the technology it needs to put them there, and that's a huge competitive advantage (like it was for Starlink) if they do turn out to be…
To this, they need humans operating the space side, the base station, they need base stations etc.
It is affected by weather as well.
Its not a 'no-brainer' and while space x showed its somehow a business, amazon and others are entering this space now too. So they never had a first mover financial advantage making big bucks and others are coming which will drive customer base and margin down.
And data center in orbit is not just a pipe dream, its stupid on a whole new level. Smart would have been to build like a DC City in the middle of the USA were its super cheap and introducing the necessary infrastructure to it. But alone the R&D, the sending it up there, solving hard space problems just to not being able to touch hardware when it fails, man thats stupidity on a whole new level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how replacing mobile carriers with space based infrastructure is physically possible.
It's not meant to replace terrestrial networks, it's a space-based alternative that serves areas carriers have no financial incentive to cover. Terrestrial cellular towers cost between $150k to $500k per tower, and are not economically feasible in less populated areas. There are also many dead-zones in mountainous regions, since cell signals are blocked by mountains. Starlink Mobile supplements this, it's simply chea…
A star link server has 5 years.
Setting up a terrestrial network is already done and it was relativly easy because you build it up from most profitable to lowest profitable.
Star link only serves 9/10 Million people right now with already 10k satelites whith only a lifetime of 5 years and if this market is profitable, the margins will go down sign due to other competitors. Which are already working on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your issue with the Rafah comment? Rafah is probably not 100% gone, but it is basically gone. Majority of the people are gone and it's mostly a pile of rubble. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah#/media/File:An_aerial_vi... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/15/world/middlee...
[flagged]
In space development, I don’t think there are any competitors at SpaceX’s level at the moment. On top of that, they are trying to do something most people would never even imagine: building data centers in space using SpaceX’s technology. If that becomes a reality, they will almost certainly dominate when it comes to energy.
Data centers generate enormous heat that needs to be disposed off. In space you have nowhere to conduct heat to, because there's nothing there. You are basically sitting in insulation.
Your only option is to radiate the heat away, which is comparatively super slow. Space stations have a real problem getting rid of heat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey are absolutely not replacing “legacy” isps and certainly not mobile. Even if they had perfect coverage, sat signals are way too sensitive to obstructions.
No, but they are replacing bad ISPs. I have a relative in Brussels, while there is 10gig fiber on a nearby street, he's stuck on 100/10 coax, and to add insult to injury, Starlink is cheaper.
On the other hand : "Starlink users typically experience download speeds between 45 and 280 Mbps, with a majority of users experiencing speeds over 100 Mbps. Upload speeds are typically between 10 and 30 Mbps."
That doesn't sound meaningfully different. What is the price difference ?