User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 9:58:56 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I've seen their speeds and pricing, it is competitive. However, how on earth can building a bunch of satellite's and launching them into space every couple months work out to be more profitable than digging a trench and throwing some cable in it? As it is you already have cable companies that think it's not profitable to dig a trench to rural areas... Don't get me wrong, I lived in the boondocks for a long ass time and I would have killed for broadband internet. That just doesn't seem to scale properly though, especially when you consider the rest of the world. Seems like something similar to Tesla is going on, aka not making money via the cars themselves. Going OVER is going to be cheaper than through- esp. in Appalachia or WV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:00:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not familiar with the laws about internet service. Why would one not be able to access Starlink from a boat or RV? How is it any different than accessing the internet with your smartphone? Can I travel with Starlink, or move it to a different address? Starlink satellites are scheduled to send internet down to all users within a designated area on the ground. This designated area is referred to as a cell. Your Starlink is assigned to a single cell. If you move your Starlink outside of its assigned cell, a satellite will not be scheduled to serve your Starlink and you will not receive internet. This is constrained by geometry and is not arbitrary geofencing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:00:38 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think you are entirely right. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One thing to keep in mind is that Musk simply does not care what SpaceX is worth. He will spend at whatever amount he deems necessary to accomplish his goals, without any need to answer to shareholders. I think you are entirely right. I think he's bankrolling StarLink to fund his Mars ambitions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:05:41 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those people probably already live in major cities and have no problem obtaining decent broadband. The Starlink satellites will eventually use laser links to communicate with each other. Latency between major trading hubs (NY, London, Tokyo, HK, Singapore, etc) using Starlink lasers would be less than physically possible with terrestrial fiber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:06:05 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually I think Starlink will be viable in the urban markets for some specific customers. There is a pretty sizeable demographic in any given area that are just fed up with their local provider for a host of reasons. Give them a chance to swap to better service for less money and the opportunity to tell Comcast, AT&T, Frontier, whoever to get lost, I think they'll jump on it. Essentially Starlink will unshackle the customer from the monopoly of their local provider. I also see Starlink causing a population shift of people who can work remotely moving out of liberal hell hole cities as they are no longer dependent on high speed broadband found only in the urban areas. A friend who is a realtor confirmed my idea, she's already seeing that trend starting to the point she's selling rural properties as fast as she can list them. For us out here in the sticks, it will be a huge improvement over what we have now. Semper Fi There is also surprising pockets of broadband dead space in places you would not expect it. Old plant/no plant neighborhoods in the middle of suburbia. I am right on the edge of one myself (fortunately on the good side. Gigabit is not available here yet but 500mb connections are). Working on a house right now in one of the wealthiest zip codes in the nation. The surrounding communities all have access to several flavors of broadband, even fiber to the home/gigabit. Little area he is in has shit, he is on (no kidding) DSL. like 1.5mb DSL. And that is the best he can get. A lot of his neighbors have satellite broadband. He is currently looking into Starlink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:07:06 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 60 every month? They've already had 2 launches in the past week with another scheduled thus Sunday. ETA: There's gave been 8 Starlink launches this year to date, including a rideshare of 10 units that went up on a Falcon 9 that launched a bunch of other smaller satellites. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So they just let them burn up and send up new ones? Yikes. Between the replenishing launches, and what's already up there, it's a total clusterfuck at twilight, or even in the dead of night depending on the position of the moon. The best you can hope for are dark spots obscuring the stars and nebulae. But, it's the reflected flares that can be really overwhelming to the more casual observer. 60 every month? They've already had 2 launches in the past week with another scheduled thus Sunday. ETA: There's gave been 8 Starlink launches this year to date, including a rideshare of 10 units that went up on a Falcon 9 that launched a bunch of other smaller satellites. Bottom line, they will be coming down as fast as they can launch them. If he puts up 12,000, they'll come down at one rate, if he puts up 44,000, they'll be coming down at almost four times the rate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:07:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: STARLINK is not currently designed nor approved for mobile use like that. It is for use at a stationary location where your billing is. Something about FCC licenses, also you would not be able to use it on the move but would need to set up the system from scratch at each stop. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think you underestimate the size of the markets for a product like this. Just the Marine and RV markets alone are enormous. They have applied for whatever licensure is required to provide it in mobile applications. I know one of Musk's goals was to have Teslas equipped with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:10:21 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are planning 2 or more starlink missions every month on Falcon 9's. Once Starship comes online they plan on switching over to that launcher which is even cheaper to fly than a F9 and can launch hundreds at once. Nick |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:11:19 AM EDT
[#9]
I actually know someone who is interning at SpaceX building Starlink satellites.
He says that letting them burn up works to prevent Kessler and to keep the hardware and software updated. He said even with the past few starling launches they are now at Gen 3 of the dish, Gen 2 of the body, and Gen 2 of the thruster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:12:57 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 400 per Starship. And that's because of the space, not the weight. Extend the nose of the vehicle and you could throw more up there without hitting the tonnage limit. Nick I guarantee they will make the satellites larger and more powerful (on top of launching more) when Starship flies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:19:37 AM EDT
[#11]
I’d wager between Private and Commercial services plus Gov’t contracts, all of it on a global scale, they’ll make money hand over fist. Replenishing satellites due to end-of-serviceable-life shouldn’t be a concern.
ETA: Also, I can imagine cellular options in the near future with hybrid sat phones to compete with VZ, AT&T, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:25:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And an SST makes a lot more sense than a Hyperloop. And a space elevator makes a lot more sense than reusable rockets for delivering massive payloads. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Consider me doubtful that it's profitable to send up that many satellites with that kind of frequency. For the majority of people terrestrial internet will be faster and at least similar in price. Starlink sounds great for rural areas and countries with poor infrastructure, but only one of those will possibly have any money. And an SST makes a lot more sense than a Hyperloop. And a space elevator makes a lot more sense than reusable rockets for delivering massive payloads. Until it fails, and with all the terrorism it would fail soon enough. It's not like you could protect it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:28:08 AM EDT
[#13]
I pay ~$90/mo for my "4g wifi" connection that on GOOD days gives me 1mb/sec, until I hit the monthly cap of 12gig then adverages between 50-100 kb/s.
There is a fiber line 100 yards from my house, quoted $700/mo to connect. No dsl/cable options, no wisp in my area. My $99 deposit has been made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:31:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not concerned about that. I'm more concerned I've never heard anyone explain what happens when terrestrial internet is so much faster than Starlink that it will become next to useless. You can't upload new hardware. So they just let them burn up and send up new ones? Yikes. When millions of people worldwide (and tens of millions of Americans) finally have ACCESS to terrestrial internet, or for that matter even cell service; then yes, no one will want satellite internet. Until then... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:35:11 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It weights 500lbs and has the LxW dimensions of a king sized mattress. It will burn up. Quote HistoryQuoted: It weights 500lbs and has the LxW dimensions of a king sized mattress. It will burn up. I did not know that. SpaceX has successfully conducted more than 20 Starlink launches to date, sending satellites into space mostly in batches of 60, with the vast majority being deployed at an orbital altitude of around 340 miles. So far, the company has launched 1,325 Starlink satellites, although 64 of these have reentered the Earth's atmosphere leaving 1,261 in orbit. SpaceX now owns around one-third of all the active satellites in orbit above the Earth. Each satellite weighs around 570 pounds, according to the company. They measure about the same size as a table, Sky & Telescope magazine reported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:35:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Kessler syndrome might become a problem.
But Starlink satellites de orbiting? I'm not too worried.  SPACEX but its THUNDERBIRDS! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:37:22 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I've seen their speeds and pricing, it is competitive. However, how on earth can building a bunch of satellite's and launching them into space every couple months work out to be more profitable than digging a trench and throwing some cable in it? As it is you already have cable companies that think it's not profitable to dig a trench to rural areas... Don't get me wrong, I lived in the boondocks for a long ass time and I would have killed for broadband internet. That just doesn't seem to scale properly though, especially when you consider the rest of the world. Seems like something similar to Tesla is going on, aka not making money via the cars themselves. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I don't have it handy but they listed what the target speed and price per month will be. It's competitive, and if you lived in the middle of nowhere it would be worth twice what they are asking. Yeah I've seen their speeds and pricing, it is competitive. However, how on earth can building a bunch of satellite's and launching them into space every couple months work out to be more profitable than digging a trench and throwing some cable in it? As it is you already have cable companies that think it's not profitable to dig a trench to rural areas... Don't get me wrong, I lived in the boondocks for a long ass time and I would have killed for broadband internet. That just doesn't seem to scale properly though, especially when you consider the rest of the world. Seems like something similar to Tesla is going on, aka not making money via the cars themselves. and then when you think about airliners, cruise ships, cargo ships, etc. they all "need" high-speed internet and the current options aren't the best. Starlink is going to make out like a bandit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:39:13 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: oh, but it does scale properly. the entire world is its potential customers. they're already opening up the "better than nothing Beta" to Europe. that satellite can be accessed just about anywhere in the world for use when its overhead, even in BFE. and then when you think about airliners, cruise ships, cargo ships, etc. they all "need" high-speed internet and the current options aren't the best. Starlink is going to make out like a bandit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't have it handy but they listed what the target speed and price per month will be. It's competitive, and if you lived in the middle of nowhere it would be worth twice what they are asking. Yeah I've seen their speeds and pricing, it is competitive. However, how on earth can building a bunch of satellite's and launching them into space every couple months work out to be more profitable than digging a trench and throwing some cable in it? As it is you already have cable companies that think it's not profitable to dig a trench to rural areas... Don't get me wrong, I lived in the boondocks for a long ass time and I would have killed for broadband internet. That just doesn't seem to scale properly though, especially when you consider the rest of the world. Seems like something similar to Tesla is going on, aka not making money via the cars themselves. and then when you think about airliners, cruise ships, cargo ships, etc. they all "need" high-speed internet and the current options aren't the best. Starlink is going to make out like a bandit. Waiting for them make it public so I can get in on that stock early. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:42:10 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Consider me doubtful that it's profitable to send up that many satellites with that kind of frequency. For the majority of people terrestrial internet will be faster and at least similar in price. Starlink sounds great for rural areas and countries with poor infrastructure, but only one of those will possibly have any money. Actually the way Starlink will make its money is by being FASTER than terrestrial connections. IIRC at some point the constellation will start using lasers in space to connect the satellites. They'll be able to reduce the end-to-end latency. I read claims that trading will happen several thousandths of a second faster with Starlink rather than over terrestrial connections. Apparently that's a huge factor in trading. It's amazing technology anyway you look at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:44:24 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually I think Starlink will be viable in the urban markets for some specific customers. There is a pretty sizeable demographic in any given area that are just fed up with their local provider for a host of reasons. Give them a chance to swap to better service for less money and the opportunity to tell Comcast, AT&T, Frontier, whoever to get lost, I think they'll jump on it. Essentially Starlink will unshackle the customer from the monopoly of their local provider. I also see Starlink causing a population shift of people who can work remotely moving out of liberal hell hole cities as they are no longer dependent on high speed broadband found only in the urban areas. A friend who is a realtor confirmed my idea, she's already seeing that trend starting to the point she's selling rural properties as fast as she can list them. For us out here in the sticks, it will be a huge improvement over what we have now. Semper Fi Even if people don't change having the option may make their existing service better and cheaper. Competition is good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:56:04 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Those people probably already live in major cities and have no problem obtaining decent broadband. The question is not about availability or bandwidht - it's transmission time and round-trip transmission time (e.g. latency). Starlink is up to 50% faster to arrive at the destination than any terrestrial fiber can be, because the speed of light in a vaccum is faster than the speed of light in a fiber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:59:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not concerned about that. I'm more concerned I've never heard anyone explain what happens when terrestrial internet is so much faster than Starlink that it will become next to useless. You can't upload new hardware. So they just let them burn up and send up new ones? Yikes. Terrestrial internet requires a physical connection point. For that reason Starlink will never be "useless". |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:00:40 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmmm... But can he sell internet access to those people at a profit OR even at cost? At $100/mo... that's more than even *I* want to spend. I mean, if I lived in the boondocks, and couldn't get good internet otherwise... I'd HAPPILY pay that. But Someone in say... the Philippines? $100/mo is pretty steep considering a typical pay is like $100 a week. The Philippines is not even as poor as many many other parts of the world. Perhaps if he had cheaper plans based on speed? Like maybe only $30 at 30mbps ? I'm a tech idiot, so explain to me why 1 membership providing 150mbps couldn't be split up between quite a few households? For example, my family has an office with DSL 10mb service about 3/4 of a mile away, the phone line runs about 3 miles around to ever get to us and is not available. So I just put up two antennas/radios and gtg. Could we do the same thing with a starlink setup? I have a friend who lives at a lake with no service whatsoever, not even cell service. And he lives down a road with at least 30 other houses. Why wouldn't he be able to pay for starlink, and profit off his neighbors paying him for it? Again, TECH IDIOT here, I'm assuming maybe there is a max device access on the accounts or something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:05:53 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FFS, they last 5 years in LEO so that you can get decent ping rates, when they run out of fuel they deorbit and burn up in the atmosphere. They are cheap to put into orbit, due to reusable rockets (Falcon 9) and will be even cheaper when the Starships are up and running. Because they deorbit regularly the technology will constantly be updating on a regular basis with ever increasing speeds. Eventually you will be able to get high speed internet anywhere on the Earth, it's small enough now for homes, RV's, boats and trucks. I imagine in the not to distant future that receivers will be built into all electronic devices, essentially eliminating all but the highest and fastest throughput providers, but for everyone else Starlink will be more than good enough for anything reasonable up to and including high def videos. Exactly. Like the push for 5G right now. How much faster do I realistically need my internet to be? Barring some new revolutionary data hogging application LTE is more than sufficient for my uses. Same applies to ISPs. I could pay a little more for a gigabit but I've never even hit the capacity on my current 200 down so why bother? It's not like I'm running a server farm in my basement. Starlink should be more than capable for realistic home use applications. There's still many places where dial up is the best you can do so this will be a game changer for a lot of people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:08:06 AM EDT
[#25]
I got the email that I can sign up.....still considering pulling the trigger or not. I'm very rural with a 20mg connection through my COOP WISP, which has been really stable. The monthly cost with Starlink would be the same price, but they mentioned potential outages on the frontend in the email I received....working remote right now makes that an issue.
I think I'm going to wait until they get through this beta testing phase before pulling the trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:10:48 AM EDT
[#26]
So the op hasn't been worried about the 3000 or so satellites that are currently orbiting the earth?
Pretty sure there are very few of them with 1960's soviet era nuclear reactors in them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:13:44 AM EDT
[#27]
Re-usable rockets and a multitude of disposable satellites. So in the long term nothing is gained/saved by using a re-usable platform.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:13:45 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not concerned about that. I'm more concerned I've never heard anyone explain what happens when terrestrial internet is so much faster than Starlink that it will become next to useless. You can't upload new hardware. So they just let them burn up and send up new ones? Yikes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:15:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can I travel with Starlink, or move it to a different address? Starlink satellites are scheduled to send internet down to all users within a designated area on the ground. This designated area is referred to as a cell. Your Starlink is assigned to a single cell. If you move your Starlink outside of its assigned cell, a satellite will not be scheduled to serve your Starlink and you will not receive internet. This is constrained by geometry and is not arbitrary geofencing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm not familiar with the laws about internet service. Why would one not be able to access Starlink from a boat or RV? How is it any different than accessing the internet with your smartphone? Can I travel with Starlink, or move it to a different address? Starlink satellites are scheduled to send internet down to all users within a designated area on the ground. This designated area is referred to as a cell. Your Starlink is assigned to a single cell. If you move your Starlink outside of its assigned cell, a satellite will not be scheduled to serve your Starlink and you will not receive internet. This is constrained by geometry and is not arbitrary geofencing. That's during the beta. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:16:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: 12,000 mini satellites start falling out of the sky when they run out of fuel? I am sure some parts will survive reentry. Do we need to hang up our tinfoil hats and start wearing AR500 hats? not a big deal we'll just fuel em up and toss them back up in the sky. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:16:31 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Re-usable rockets and a multitude of disposable satellites. So in the long term nothing is gained/saved by using a re-usable platform. Sure it is. With reusable launchers your cost can go way down. With disposable satellites they don't have to be built to last for decades and they can be made relatively inexpensively w/ the plan to upgrade them as they fail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:18:35 AM EDT
[#32]
They're frigging tiny.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:21:45 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So the op hasn't been worried about the 3000 or so satellites that are currently orbiting the earth? Pretty sure there are very few of them with 1960's soviet era nuclear reactors in them. Quote HistoryQuoted: So the op hasn't been worried about the 3000 or so satellites that are currently orbiting the earth? Pretty sure there are very few of them with 1960's soviet era nuclear reactors in them. https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/us-a.htm US-A (Upravlenniye Sputnik Aktivny) were active radar satellites for ocean surveillance. The high power consumtion of the active radar required a nuclear reactor as power source. The satellites were known as RORSAT in the west. At the end of the mission, the reactor compartment is separated and boosted ito a higher storage orbit. Beginning with Kosmos 1176, the reactor core was also ejected to avoid radioactive material reaching the ground in the event of reentry. In 1973, an US-A satellite failed to reach orbit and burned up. Two missions failed to boost their reactor into the safe orbit. Kosmos 954's reactor reentered over Canada and polluted an area of 124000 m². Kosmos 1402 ejected the reactor core before reentry. The unprotected core burned up over the south Atlantic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:23:04 AM EDT
[#34]
Bit of trivia. The Japanese are working on wooden satellites.
Bet those burn up nicely in the upper atmosphere.   Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:25:34 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuel huh? Not the way OP meant it, but yes. In LEO, there will be atmospheric friction gradually, but constantly slowing them down and bringing them down. Eventually, they will run out of thruster fuel to boost them back up/speed them up and they will start dropping. That atmospheric friction is the major disadvantage of LEO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:28:06 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can I travel with Starlink, or move it to a different address? Starlink satellites are scheduled to send internet down to all users within a designated area on the ground. This designated area is referred to as a cell. Your Starlink is assigned to a single cell. If you move your Starlink outside of its assigned cell, a satellite will not be scheduled to serve your Starlink and you will not receive internet. This is constrained by geometry and is not arbitrary geofencing. The technology is already evolving to service mobile platforms like boats, RV's, Trucks. The receivers will start to shrink going forward, I expect in ten years or so must people will use voip for connectivity or at the very least have it as an option on their phones if out of cell service. Starlink is going to be very disruptive over time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:34:43 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/elon-musk-connecting-rvs-and-trucks-through-starlink-satellites.html The technology is already evolving to service mobile platforms like boats, RV's, Trucks. The receivers will start to shrink going forward, I expect in ten years or so must people will use voip for connectivity or at the very least have it as an option on their phones if out of cell service. Starlink is going to be very disruptive over time. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can I travel with Starlink, or move it to a different address? Starlink satellites are scheduled to send internet down to all users within a designated area on the ground. This designated area is referred to as a cell. Your Starlink is assigned to a single cell. If you move your Starlink outside of its assigned cell, a satellite will not be scheduled to serve your Starlink and you will not receive internet. This is constrained by geometry and is not arbitrary geofencing. The technology is already evolving to service mobile platforms like boats, RV's, Trucks. The receivers will start to shrink going forward, I expect in ten years or so must people will use voip for connectivity or at the very least have it as an option on their phones if out of cell service. Starlink is going to be very disruptive over time. Think about the potential if all of your cars came with Starlink as an option. All the cars could have built in wired and wireless networking for devices which don't bring their own feed. Some people would hate it. Some would love it, but the potential is huge. Especially if the cars are self driving and people can work and play while travelling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:37:51 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah I've seen their speeds and pricing, it is competitive. However, how on earth can building a bunch of satellite's and launching them into space every couple months work out to be more profitable than digging a trench and throwing some cable in it? As it is you already have cable companies that think it's not profitable to dig a trench to rural areas... Don't get me wrong, I lived in the boondocks for a long ass time and I would have killed for broadband internet. That just doesn't seem to scale properly though, especially when you consider the rest of the world. Seems like something similar to Tesla is going on, aka not making money via the cars themselves. One trench with a cable to the boondocks has a certain cost and a limited number of customers. Satellites have a certain cost to launch but can always reach additional customers at no additional costs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:51:24 AM EDT
[#39]
If it hasn't been addressed in the thread, it's worth noting that these won't be traditional impulse deorbits that target a window, but rather an assisted orbital decay that will reenter at unplanned points in their orbits.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 11:53:02 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bit of trivia. The Japanese are working on wooden satellites. Bet those burn up nicely in the upper atmosphere.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElTppsKjpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:03:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Consider me doubtful that it's profitable to send up that many satellites with that kind of frequency. For the majority of people terrestrial internet will be faster and at least similar in price. Starlink sounds great for rural areas and countries with poor infrastructure, but only one of those will possibly have any money. Five years is a pretty common refresh cycle for hardware in the data center world this one just happens to be spread out in space. I would imagine they could upgrade whatever software they need to until the hardware has reached EOL. The hardware refresh in this case just involves a little more dramatic delivery lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:14:45 PM EDT
[#42]
Each satellite has a dozen independently targetable Tungsten “Rods from God”. Elon’s little insurance policy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:17:48 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can already envision the joinery. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Bit of trivia. The Japanese are working on wooden satellites. Bet those burn up nicely in the upper atmosphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElTppsKjpgIt gets hot in space, it also gets cold in space. That's not going to be hard on wood, is it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:28:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm in the opposite camp, I can't fathom how anyone could picture digging essentially infinite trenches to infinite locations could ever be cheaper than a satellite-based solution. And those trenches don't move with you. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't have it handy but they listed what the target speed and price per month will be. It's competitive, and if you lived in the middle of nowhere it would be worth twice what they are asking. Yeah I've seen their speeds and pricing, it is competitive. However, how on earth can building a bunch of satellite's and launching them into space every couple months work out to be more profitable than digging a trench and throwing some cable in it? As it is you already have cable companies that think it's not profitable to dig a trench to rural areas... Don't get me wrong, I lived in the boondocks for a long ass time and I would have killed for broadband internet. That just doesn't seem to scale properly though, especially when you consider the rest of the world. Seems like something similar to Tesla is going on, aka not making money via the cars themselves. I'm in the opposite camp, I can't fathom how anyone could picture digging essentially infinite trenches to infinite locations could ever be cheaper than a satellite-based solution. And those trenches don't move with you. Any place rural enough to not have good internet already likely has power lines on poles. You string it up on existing poles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:41:23 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're frigging tiny. Quote HistoryQuoted: They're frigging tiny. Didn't someone above, say 500 lbs. and the size of a mattress? Small, compared to other satellites but hardly "frigging tiny". ETA: Quoted: It weights 500lbs and has the LxW dimensions of a king sized mattress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:41:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OP needs to study some physics to understand how satellites such as the Starlink ones in low Earth orbit work... Actually he seems to have a decent handle on it. Many (most?) LEO satellites have a reserve of fuel for stationkeeping, orbital reboost, and graveyard parking. They won't fall out of the sky until they're out of fuel or intentionally moved to a terminal orbit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:42:21 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: $100 a month for rural high speed is cheap. Rural people will pay for that by dumping Dish, DTV and streaming instead. It will be a wash on their monthly spending. Dish and DTV will cease to exist. That's why dish is fighting starlink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:45:27 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bit of trivia. The Japanese are working on wooden satellites. Bet those burn up nicely in the upper atmosphere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElTppsKjpgI think China has used wood as an ablative heat shield before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:57:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryNot really applicable. Starlink sats are in an extremely low orbit and will burn in pretty quick. Smashed Starlink sats will burn in even quicker. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 12:58:50 PM EDT
[#50]
Anything could be used as a heat shield ... if you're brave enough.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
