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

SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#761

Post by ozim »

holoduke wrote: post #531
digitaltrees wrote: post #379

I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.

Russia and China are coming as well. Expect all big countries have hundreds of thousands of low orbit sats. It required in order to be a powerful military nation. Without it a country is doomed.

Undersea fiber is cool until someone sends a submarine to snip it or sends „not associated ship” to drag anchor over the coordinates of fiber cable.

It is harder to break satellite constellation in a concealed way.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#762

Post by singingtoday »

stringfood wrote: post #701
rayiner wrote: post #694

A couple of billion people are doing to join the global middle class over the coming decades. They don’t have pre-existing cable and phone networks that have been in the ground for 50+ years they can incrementally upgrade to broadband. Rich countries spend trillions getting to the point where most people have some sort of wired broadband option. If newly middle income countries want to pursue the same route, it will…

but is providing access to internet for billions of people worth not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night? I say yes, but only just barely

This is unironically why I believe lights should be shut off at night. Entire cities.

I'd love to see the sky. Actually see it. Even the most remote places have light pollution, so it's impossible and likely will be going forward.

Maybe it's silly, but it makes me sad.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#763

Post by notahacker »

runako wrote: post #410
deadbabe wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Automated cargo ships. Traveling to automated ports.

This idea that putting $500m+ of assets in the water, but thinking that even one person on the boat is too many has got to be one of the silliest things in modern capitalism (obviously the crown goes to orbital AI data centers). The same bosses will pay multiple security guards, in addition to staff, to guard <$10m in goods at a Walmart. But when 50x the goods are in the ocean, suddenly the staff is the limiter?

Yeah, autonomous shipping makes sense for naval/coastguard drones but not much else. Shipping companies can pay most of the staff Filipino wages, and they run around doing all sorts of maintenance tasks, not just navigation and contro.

Now the crew will be very pleased if they get a Starlink connection rather than the ridiculously small crew connectivity allowance Inmarsat et al will give them, but that all depends on shipping companies not having to pay premium prices for maritime connectivity.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#764

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

askvictor wrote: post #382
dtagames wrote: post #302

I just finished a long RV trip and I can tell you it's hard to underestimate the importance of internet access (which also means Wi-Fi calling and access to maps and weather) across our entire, enormous nation. It's important not only for individuals but even more for businesses. Despite cell phone company ads with handsome celebrities in the desert, cell phones actually do not work in many places. But people do need…

Once upon a time, people did long RV trips without internet access. Or even (cellular) phone access.

People used to die trying to cross the country

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#765

Post by revolvingthrow »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #725
rayiner wrote: post #683

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing. I worked on technology for years that the FCC effectively killed for stupid reasons. So it’s heartening to me that someone can still just do stuff and build things. It’s amazing. If you asked me 10 years ago I would have thought that getting something like Starlink off the ground wo…

People can still "do stuff and build things" while having consideration for environmental impacts.

Given the nightmarish nimby gridlock I’m less and less convinced it’s a good thing. I’d rather have people mad about windmills being eyesores than be perpetually chained to oil and gas for energy, as an example. I’m also not a fan of endless roadblocks to all manner of construction, even for such simple things as housing.

Yes, having a data center that raises your utilities costs by 300% jammed down your throat because the local mayor got blatantly bribed shouldn’t be a thing, especially when it’s powered by mobile gas turbines that stink up the entire area (note: I’m not against data centers on principle, but there are many ways for ultra-wealthy interests to leave people hosed). But things like faintly visible mini-sats don’t seem like a big deal, subjectively, unless you work at an observatory.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#766

Post by singingtoday »

dom96 wrote: post #704

What I don't understand is where are the Starlink competitors. Supposedly the UK government owns a stake of 10% in OneWeb and yet they are planning to use Starlink for trains. Is it really just too hard to put enough satellites in orbit to be competitive with Starlink?

Starlink has an unfair advantage and is flown on the economically unbeatable falcons.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#767

Post by rglullis »

rayiner wrote: post #683
digitaltrees wrote: post #379

I have started to see what I think are star link satellites at night on walks with my kids. It actually makes me sad to see that on person owns the night sky and is changing the literal stars my kids will grow up with. It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing.

> It feels different when it’s the government that theoretically represents people but when it’s one person that feels truly depressing. I worked on technology for years that the FCC effectively killed for stupid reasons. So it’s heartening to me that someone can still just do stuff and build things. It’s amazing. If you asked me 10 years ago I would have thought that getting something like Starlink off the ground wo…

It is not because can do something that they should.

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#768

Post by sirshmooey »

rayiner wrote: post #730
stringfood wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but is providing access to internet for billions of people worth not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night? I say yes, but only just barely

That's a ghoulish thing to say.

Can you empirically say internet access improves wellbeing? Anecdotally, my answer is a resounding "no".

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#769

Post by singingtoday »

andriy_koval wrote: post #522
esperent wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember ~20 years ago upgrading my house line to get something crazy like 0.5mbs and the sales guy telling me that I didn't really need it and was wasting money upgrading from my current ~0.2mbs. Those numbers are fudged of course, I don't remember exactly how long ago or from what to what I was upgrading. My point is that we've always been having people say you don't need faster internet. And yet, I still want, a…

what you do to fill difference between 200, 500 and 1gb?..

Uploading large files is probably the biggest thing, 4k video streaming (out) while others in my house are streaming in or playing games with no slowdown.

I remember watching hours pass uploading files on my 200 mbit. Still take time but much faster with gigabit (measured at 940 bmit, so not the full 1gbit)

Re: SpaceX wants to launch 100k more Starlink satellites for 100x the bandwidth

#770

Post by ThrowawayTestr »

singingtoday wrote: post #762
stringfood wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but is providing access to internet for billions of people worth not being able to see the big dipper as clearly at night? I say yes, but only just barely

This is unironically why I believe lights should be shut off at night. Entire cities. I'd love to see the sky. Actually see it. Even the most remote places have light pollution, so it's impossible and likely will be going forward. Maybe it's silly, but it makes me sad.

This is a first world problem that has a first world solution: get in your car and drive to the woods.
Post reply on HN