User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:09:41 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any idea on how big the cells are. It would be nice to have the ability to set up in a few different places without having multiple accounts. I read 2 square miles on average per cell. However, that assertion was not well supported and I didn't keep a link. YouTubers have driven considerably farther than that, stopped, set up the dish and had it work. But I'm not sure what the actual limit is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:11:29 PM EST
[#2]
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. Space X has cut the cost of launching hardware into low earth orbit dramatically. It was $54,000+/kg with shuttle, United Launch Alliance is over $10,000/kg, Falcon 9 is $2700/kg and they intend to get even cheaper with the next rocket. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:13:42 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lucky I was paying 100 for 20 theoretical and receiving 250k on a good day with lots of drops and 200+ pings. I love my starlink. Congrats! Very glad to hear it. That's why I'm on the list. I've pre-built a tripod for it and that's going on the roof tomorrow. Actually, it's a satellite J mount that I modified in several ways, one of which was for the 1.41" diameter mast on Dishy McFlatface.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:18:36 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If something makes it down to 35,000 feet, it's making all the way down to the ground. Might lose a bit of velocity in that last 7 miles, but she's coming in. I've seen meteors streak right above airplanes before, like right above. Thing is, though, to the pilots, that meteor was just as far above them as it was above me. That's not to say that some portion of the rock didn't make it to the surface, just that all the impressive thermal stuff happens with 100,000-300,000 feet above air traffic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Depends on what you consider a problem. It doesn't present a danger as long as reentry was properly considered in the design of the components. And even if some missteps were made, look, you can randomly throw lots of stuff to the Earth's surface and never hurt someone. But, in about 3 years time, I think the problem will be that of visibility. I think there will be something like a 1:4 to 1:1 chance of an observable Starlink reentry on any given day. Look, we probably crash more cars than that every day in my small county, so in terms of "big picture" waste, it's not significant. But, overhead clutter is going to become more and more noticeable as the months and years go on, and the reentries will just punctuate that. I've seen meteors streak right above airplanes before, like right above. Thing is, though, to the pilots, that meteor was just as far above them as it was above me. That's not to say that some portion of the rock didn't make it to the surface, just that all the impressive thermal stuff happens with 100,000-300,000 feet above air traffic. Most people watched that movie "Gravity" and were able to enjoy it without even realizing how absolutely nonsensical the orbital mechanics were. In the Avengers movies, "space" is played out as one destination, while people go to different places within Earth. Our brains just aren't wired to appreciate the sheer size of space as a whole. Let alone the reality of different altitude orbits. Nobody would start driving a car in Kansas, head north, and worry some guy driving a car in Australia might hit him. But, move that a mile up? That's just how we think. Maybe because... no obstacles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:34:54 PM EST
[#5]
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? There's many more items up there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:49:21 PM EST
[#6]
What caught my attention was just how long ablated material emits visible heat after the kinetic term goes to zero.
These visible red halos from meteor breakups remain visible for 10-12 minutes after the meteor streaked in.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:50:10 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Most people watched that movie "Gravity" and were able to enjoy it without even realizing how absolutely nonsensical the orbital mechanics were. In the Avengers movies, "space" is played out as one destination, while people go to different places within Earth. Our brains just aren't wired to appreciate the sheer size of space as a whole. Let alone the reality of different altitude orbits. Nobody would start driving a car in Kansas, head north, and worry some guy driving a car in Australia might hit him. But, move that a mile up? That's just how we think. Maybe because... no obstacles? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Depends on what you consider a problem. It doesn't present a danger as long as reentry was properly considered in the design of the components. And even if some missteps were made, look, you can randomly throw lots of stuff to the Earth's surface and never hurt someone. But, in about 3 years time, I think the problem will be that of visibility. I think there will be something like a 1:4 to 1:1 chance of an observable Starlink reentry on any given day. Look, we probably crash more cars than that every day in my small county, so in terms of "big picture" waste, it's not significant. But, overhead clutter is going to become more and more noticeable as the months and years go on, and the reentries will just punctuate that. I've seen meteors streak right above airplanes before, like right above. Thing is, though, to the pilots, that meteor was just as far above them as it was above me. That's not to say that some portion of the rock didn't make it to the surface, just that all the impressive thermal stuff happens with 100,000-300,000 feet above air traffic. Most people watched that movie "Gravity" and were able to enjoy it without even realizing how absolutely nonsensical the orbital mechanics were. In the Avengers movies, "space" is played out as one destination, while people go to different places within Earth. Our brains just aren't wired to appreciate the sheer size of space as a whole. Let alone the reality of different altitude orbits. Nobody would start driving a car in Kansas, head north, and worry some guy driving a car in Australia might hit him. But, move that a mile up? That's just how we think. Maybe because... no obstacles? Funny thing, the filmmakers were well aware of the unreality and tried think up a believable way to weave the space station hop together, but couldn't really come up with one without adding another 15-20 minutes of burns and Sandra Bullock doing explanatory soliloquys. They decided to say fuck it and hand wave it in order to keep from totally derailing the pace of the movie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 7:55:10 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny thing, the filmmakers were well aware of the unreality and tried think up a believable way to weave the space station hop together, but couldn't really come up with one without adding another 15-20 minutes of burns and Sandra Bullock doing explanatory soliloquys. They decided to say fuck it and hand wave it in order to keep from totally derailing the pace of the movie. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Depends on what you consider a problem. It doesn't present a danger as long as reentry was properly considered in the design of the components. And even if some missteps were made, look, you can randomly throw lots of stuff to the Earth's surface and never hurt someone. But, in about 3 years time, I think the problem will be that of visibility. I think there will be something like a 1:4 to 1:1 chance of an observable Starlink reentry on any given day. Look, we probably crash more cars than that every day in my small county, so in terms of "big picture" waste, it's not significant. But, overhead clutter is going to become more and more noticeable as the months and years go on, and the reentries will just punctuate that. I've seen meteors streak right above airplanes before, like right above. Thing is, though, to the pilots, that meteor was just as far above them as it was above me. That's not to say that some portion of the rock didn't make it to the surface, just that all the impressive thermal stuff happens with 100,000-300,000 feet above air traffic. Most people watched that movie "Gravity" and were able to enjoy it without even realizing how absolutely nonsensical the orbital mechanics were. In the Avengers movies, "space" is played out as one destination, while people go to different places within Earth. Our brains just aren't wired to appreciate the sheer size of space as a whole. Let alone the reality of different altitude orbits. Nobody would start driving a car in Kansas, head north, and worry some guy driving a car in Australia might hit him. But, move that a mile up? That's just how we think. Maybe because... no obstacles? Funny thing, the filmmakers were well aware of the unreality and tried think up a believable way to weave the space station hop together, but couldn't really come up with one without adding another 15-20 minutes of burns and Sandra Bullock doing explanatory soliloquys. They decided to say fuck it and hand wave it in order to keep from totally derailing the pace of the movie. Which, when you think of it, makes the production - and success - of "The Martian" all that more amazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 8:16:56 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A couple of reasons that would fail in some areas like mine: They won't do it because the power lines around here are always coming down. Much of that is because our power grid is worse managed than bombed out areas in Afghanistan. Some of it is high winds. Anyway, when I lived in rural Texas, cable strung under power lines was somewhat reliable. Somewhat more reliable than my current DSL in rural Colorado. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Any place rural enough to not have good internet already likely has power lines on poles. You string it up on existing poles. A couple of reasons that would fail in some areas like mine: They won't do it because the power lines around here are always coming down. Much of that is because our power grid is worse managed than bombed out areas in Afghanistan. Some of it is high winds. Anyway, when I lived in rural Texas, cable strung under power lines was somewhat reliable. Somewhat more reliable than my current DSL in rural Colorado. Not to mention the people that can make robust networks with fiber and other technology aren't usually the folks that own the poles and vice versa. The problem being the folks with poles aren't usually cooperative when it comes to overbuilding their obsolete DSL network. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 8:49:45 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not to mention the people that can make robust networks with fiber and other technology aren't usually the folks that own the poles and vice versa. The problem being the folks with poles aren't usually cooperative when it comes to overbuilding their obsolete DSL network. Excellent point. Local rumor is the power company refuses to negotiate with the ISPs. I think it's because they know their grid is garbage and will be taking down the fiber all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/18/2021 10:20:31 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which, when you think of it, makes the production - and success - of "The Martian" all that more amazing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Depends on what you consider a problem. It doesn't present a danger as long as reentry was properly considered in the design of the components. And even if some missteps were made, look, you can randomly throw lots of stuff to the Earth's surface and never hurt someone. But, in about 3 years time, I think the problem will be that of visibility. I think there will be something like a 1:4 to 1:1 chance of an observable Starlink reentry on any given day. Look, we probably crash more cars than that every day in my small county, so in terms of "big picture" waste, it's not significant. But, overhead clutter is going to become more and more noticeable as the months and years go on, and the reentries will just punctuate that. I've seen meteors streak right above airplanes before, like right above. Thing is, though, to the pilots, that meteor was just as far above them as it was above me. That's not to say that some portion of the rock didn't make it to the surface, just that all the impressive thermal stuff happens with 100,000-300,000 feet above air traffic. Most people watched that movie "Gravity" and were able to enjoy it without even realizing how absolutely nonsensical the orbital mechanics were. In the Avengers movies, "space" is played out as one destination, while people go to different places within Earth. Our brains just aren't wired to appreciate the sheer size of space as a whole. Let alone the reality of different altitude orbits. Nobody would start driving a car in Kansas, head north, and worry some guy driving a car in Australia might hit him. But, move that a mile up? That's just how we think. Maybe because... no obstacles? Funny thing, the filmmakers were well aware of the unreality and tried think up a believable way to weave the space station hop together, but couldn't really come up with one without adding another 15-20 minutes of burns and Sandra Bullock doing explanatory soliloquys. They decided to say fuck it and hand wave it in order to keep from totally derailing the pace of the movie. Which, when you think of it, makes the production - and success - of "The Martian" all that more amazing. That one was helped along quite a bit by Andy Weir developing the plot over quite a bit of time and doing ten shitloads of rewrites when internet fans reading it chapter by chapter on his website told him how and why chapters were boring, until he had tweaked it sufficiently to make the science journey fun and engaging. The movie script actually adhered to the novel really well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 12:01:28 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. The majority of people out there can barely remember to change their WIFI password... much less set up a central router, with settings that cap each house hold's data usage so that *ONE* guy downloading his entire Steam Library won't fuck everyone else's households over. Basic way I would do it is to install a router close to the dish, (but indoors, of course)... turn WIFI off. Then run Ethernet to all the different houses I'm sharing with, using preferably some kind of outdoor rated Ethernet. Then hook up individual routers in each home to serve that specific home. Those routers would have WIFI and Ethernet port access. Disabling WIFI on the main router isn't super necessary, but just because it is the "Distribution" Router, and doesn't need WIFI turned on because the "Access" routers would provide the function of individually connecting to devices within each home. It would just make things easier and more secure. But enabling Bandwidth caps is absolutely necessary to prevent one household from hogging all the bandwidth. Then I would simply apply bandwidth limits as appropriate for each Ethernet port from the main router. Admittedly, it would be fairly easy to set up. And the Philippines being what it is... you wouldn't face anyone stopping by to bitch at you for stringing Ethernet from house to house. Nor would it look out of place, as the Electrical wiring to all of the homes is very chaotic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 12:23:29 AM EST
[#13]
Just thinking out loud.
What happen when an enemy of the US a rogue nation or evil despot launches a rocket or 2 with several hundred thousand ball bearings and shotguns that orbital path with them ? Or any orbital path where a significant number of important satellites loiter. It’s happening meme seems appropriate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 12:28:02 AM EST
[#14]
Looking at the number of satellites that the various phases of Starlink has planned, I kind of think Musk will be using Starship to populate the network. Right now Falcon is putting up 60 satellites a month. If Musk gets his 3 a day Starship launches, he could get close to 1000 a day into the sky.
Starlink is not just for rural America, it is for anywhere that copper and fiber don't feel like going. My brother-in-law just purchased a beach house on the Bolivar Peninsula. Ike took out the existing copper - and ATT said fuck it. Most people are using cellular anyway. Well right now there is 1 fucking internet service provider that provides a shitty bandwidth fixed point wireless at an inflated price - They have a monopoly. Starlink will break that monopoly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 12:28:59 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just thinking out loud. What happen when an enemy of the US a rogue nation or evil despot launches a rocket or 2 with several hundred thousand ball bearings and shotguns that orbital path with them ? Or any orbital path where a significant number of important satellites loiter. It’s happening meme seems appropriate. I thought about EMP attack, an accident causing an EM emission, solar flare, nuke, etc. Of course, terrestrial systems can and do get attacked and damaged but total outage seems less likely to me than with a constellation of satellites. I consider it a concern. I have no idea how likely any of that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 12:44:09 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: everyone has their own level of cheapness, but for me, it would be worth the full amount to not have to worry about my neighbor's Netflix addition using up all the data and me getting to suffer low speeds. and if he forgets to pay the bill, then I lose my internet connection if he's primary. or, worse, neighbor does some felonious stuff on the internet and I'm the primary account, then local LEO/FBI/CIA/NSA/RIAA/etc gets to knock on my door. (that said, at work, I do provide a sub-leaser internet access over my connection, but that runs off my firewall in its own DMZ with a single static public IP dedicated for their use, with bandwidth speed limits as well. that way, any issues that came from that IP address can be directed to the office in the back.) if you put in your own router/firewall after the starlink equipment, with NAT'ing they'd only see one IP address sending traffic through the dish. even without a secondary router to mask your intentions, if multiple users connected to the starlink system over wifi, SpaceX would be hard-pressed to determine how many families were using the connection. and if I was doing this, there would be a router/firewall behind the spaceX gear with each neighbor on its own VLAN with no communication between any of the client VLANs. if you don't do this, then you're all on the same network and you better trust your neighbor's kid to not try to hack your stuff since you're local to him. The ideal set up would be using a Distribution router, which would distribute Ethernet to your neighbors properties... and they would have their own routers to connect to end-user devices. The distribution router would then be responsible for aggregating all of you and your neighbor's traffic, and applying bandwidth caps so no one can hog everyone else's bandwidth. The downside would be that to properly implement this... everyone would be capped at whatever the total bandwidth is... divided by the number of households. So 150mbps would be 50mbps per house household if it is 3 households. Alternatively, you could set it up so that each household *CAN* use up to 150mbps if all other households are idle (not using any bandwidth)... Basically, everyone would be "Guaranteed" at least 50mbps... but may often get far more if everyone else is sleeping or out of town, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 12:58:43 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought about EMP attack, an accident causing an EM emission, solar flare, nuke, etc. Of course, terrestrial systems can and do get attacked and damaged but total outage seems less likely to me than with a constellation of satellites. I consider it a concern. I have no idea how likely any of that is. I am going to guess that a spacecraft is EM hardened. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 4:48:19 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes and no. I don't think the guy is going to bankrupt himself just to serve up high speed internet to the world, but I can totally understand why he'd take an upfront loss on it due to his convictions about it. Like Tesla though, I'm wondering what the other hand is doing while we're distracted by this illusion of worldwide internet. 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. Yes and no. I don't think the guy is going to bankrupt himself just to serve up high speed internet to the world, but I can totally understand why he'd take an upfront loss on it due to his convictions about it. Like Tesla though, I'm wondering what the other hand is doing while we're distracted by this illusion of worldwide internet. Traditional satellite data rates are slow as fuck and do not work well when you have low look angles and small dishes. There are only a small number of birds in the sky, their locations are well known, and they're stationary. Who is the biggest user of satellite communications today, and what will they pay for ultra fast networking almost anywhere on the globe? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 5:17:34 AM EST
[#19]
Just placed my order for Starlink last night, now the waiting begins.
Am beyond pissed currently at a certain telco that just told the rest of the country to fuck off cause Commiefornia and their fucked up net neutrality law. That little shit fit they are throwing is essentially shutting down my local broadband provider here in rural Texas. It'll be real interesting to see how big a bite Starlink takes out of the Telcos customers base when they go live. Semper Fi |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 5:39:40 AM EST
[#20]
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. SpaceX just commented last week it is going to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 5:41:38 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Musk doesn't need the money at this point, and I think is enjoying his role as populist internet hero so much it's creating a positive feedback loop. Wouldn't surprise me if he actually lowered prices once they have the main rollout complete and have a stable maintenance budget nailed down. I mean, this is the guy who walked into the Boeing-Lockheed duopoly's market and shot it in the head, several times, just to prove that he could and that they really were that wasteful and lazy with the public funds they leech. He does need the money. He wants to do a million person city on Mars. That is going to cost more than his total current wealth to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 5:49:32 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Very true. It takes 5 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 5:52:58 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is that a real problem or not? I ask because I don't know much about how all of this works. I know things go up things come down but will these have any debri sizeable enough to hurt something? These are small cube sats. Nothing will survive. I don't think the boomers in the thread understand the new technology of these at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 6:00:47 AM EST
[#24]
i am on a dsl here 45 miles from houston. it has at 8 mbs down, 2 up. Att has no plans to improve it. There is no density. A neighbor is on microwave, $150 a month. I just got on the starlink list, it says we are targeted for midyear 2021. i can fire dish and att , have more service and pay half of current cost. bye felicia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 11:38:35 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If something makes it down to 35,000 feet, it's making all the way down to the ground. Might lose a bit of velocity in that last 7 miles, but she's coming in. I've seen meteors streak right above airplanes before, like right above. Thing is, though, to the pilots, that meteor was just as far above them as it was above me. That's not to say that some portion of the rock didn't make it to the surface, just that all the impressive thermal stuff happens with 100,000-300,000 feet above air traffic.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 12:00:11 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Space X has cut the cost of launching hardware into low earth orbit dramatically. It was $54,000+/kg with shuttle, United Launch Alliance is over $10,000/kg, Falcon 9 is $2700/kg and they intend to get even cheaper with the next rocket. Kharn SpaceX's internal launch costs that they are paying for Starlink are on the order of <$1300. Starship is planned for <$100/kg |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 2:58:05 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which, when you think of it, makes the production - and success - of "The Martian" all that more amazing. And even The Martian was seriously messed up at the beginning with that massive wind storm. Wind does not work that way on Mars. Even during a planetary dust storm it is more like a snow that something slamming you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 3:28:45 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SpaceX's internal launch costs that they are paying for Starlink are on the order of <$1300. Starship is planned for <$100/kg Yep.... His claimed cost at 250k a piece for them and the commercial falcon 9 launch price at 30 million is less then a billion for all of them in orbit to date.... And his internal cost is probably less.. 5 year lifespan, $100 a month... 167k subscribers breaks even.... He plans on 5-10x that number of sats but 5 million US customers... Hugggge cash flow, barely any operating costs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 3:54:57 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep.... His claimed cost at 250k a piece for them and the commercial falcon 9 launch price at 30 million is less then a billion for all of them in orbit to date.... And his internal cost is probably less.. 5 year lifespan, $100 a month... 167k subscribers breaks even.... He plans on 5-10x that number of sats but 5 million US customers... Hugggge cash flow, barely any operating costs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: SpaceX's internal launch costs that they are paying for Starlink are on the order of <$1300. Starship is planned for <$100/kg Yep.... His claimed cost at 250k a piece for them and the commercial falcon 9 launch price at 30 million is less then a billion for all of them in orbit to date.... And his internal cost is probably less.. 5 year lifespan, $100 a month... 167k subscribers breaks even.... He plans on 5-10x that number of sats but 5 million US customers... Hugggge cash flow, barely any operating costs. My Brother owns a handful of laundromats. He offers free wifi. He currently pays between 400 and 700/mo for high speed internet. One choice/no options. It's going to be interesting to see if the pricing pressure helps him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 4:21:26 PM EST
[#30]
I hope to survive long enough to get a Neurastarlink implant and fuck off in meetings in perfect anonymity
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 4:44:47 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: At full schedule, they'll be launching a batch of 60 or so every month. 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. We're letting technocrats sacrifice the night sky for rural instagram and Netflix.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 4:48:53 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hope to survive long enough to get a Neurastarlink implant and fuck off in meetings in perfect anonymity It'll be like a tin foil hat but flipped around the other way to act like a dish. Dishy McBallCap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 4:53:13 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We're letting technocrats sacrifice the night sky for rural instagram and Netflix. They're specifically designed to not pollute the night sky. You have porch lights? I live in a huge metropolitan area, and I'm signed up for starlink because my ISP is a shit rate monopoly charging a ton of money for a constantly unreliable connection. Glad to see Elon sticking it to MaBell style dinosaurs. Huge data centers in my city and somehow I have down time every single day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 4:57:40 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep.... His claimed cost at 250k a piece for them and the commercial falcon 9 launch price at 30 million is less then a billion for all of them in orbit to date.... And his internal cost is probably less.. 5 year lifespan, $100 a month... 167k subscribers breaks even.... He plans on 5-10x that number of sats but 5 million US customers... Hugggge cash flow, barely any operating costs. The trouble with Musk Math is it's always hugely optimistic. In the early days they claimed $10B for the entire network. That works out to around 2 million subscribers to break even on a 5 year sat life. Definitely viable but there's been a lot of changes. They're having a ton of trouble getting the lasers working, to the point it's not a guarantee they ever will. Based on their announcements they won't even *start* testing the side to side laser tracking in orbit until 2022. So far they've only done the much simpler front to back. That means nearly all of the sats they're launching now are functionally obsolete and will need to be replaced. Doubling your sat costs makes the economics much harder. Big questions remain both in how many users the system can support, and how many are willing to pay $100/month for internet. That last number is a lot lower than people here think. Almost everyone in built up areas has better access through fiber, and the rural population is either small, or not wealthy enough. $100 is a ton of money for most of the world. Lots of unknowns in the economics still, won't know either way until the entire system is up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 5:18:54 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Congrats! Very glad to hear it. That's why I'm on the list. I've pre-built a tripod for it and that's going on the roof tomorrow. Actually, it's a satellite J mount that I modified in several ways, one of which was for the 1.41" diameter mast on Dishy McFlatface. Got a pic @Micke ? I am on the list as well, and planning to repurpose the unused Dish Network mount on the side of the cabin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 5:48:29 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're specifically designed to not pollute the night sky. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 6:23:34 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The trouble with Musk Math is it's always hugely optimistic. In the early days they claimed $10B for the entire network. That works out to around 2 million subscribers to break even on a 5 year sat life. Definitely viable but there's been a lot of changes. They're having a ton of trouble getting the lasers working, to the point it's not a guarantee they ever will. Based on their announcements they won't even *start* testing the side to side laser tracking in orbit until 2022. So far they've only done the much simpler front to back. That means nearly all of the sats they're launching now are functionally obsolete and will need to be replaced. Doubling your sat costs makes the economics much harder. Big questions remain both in how many users the system can support, and how many are willing to pay $100/month for internet. That last number is a lot lower than people here think. Almost everyone in built up areas has better access through fiber, and the rural population is either small, or not wealthy enough. $100 is a ton of money for most of the world. Lots of unknowns in the economics still, won't know either way until the entire system is up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yep.... His claimed cost at 250k a piece for them and the commercial falcon 9 launch price at 30 million is less then a billion for all of them in orbit to date.... And his internal cost is probably less.. 5 year lifespan, $100 a month... 167k subscribers breaks even.... He plans on 5-10x that number of sats but 5 million US customers... Hugggge cash flow, barely any operating costs. The trouble with Musk Math is it's always hugely optimistic. In the early days they claimed $10B for the entire network. That works out to around 2 million subscribers to break even on a 5 year sat life. Definitely viable but there's been a lot of changes. They're having a ton of trouble getting the lasers working, to the point it's not a guarantee they ever will. Based on their announcements they won't even *start* testing the side to side laser tracking in orbit until 2022. So far they've only done the much simpler front to back. That means nearly all of the sats they're launching now are functionally obsolete and will need to be replaced. Doubling your sat costs makes the economics much harder. Big questions remain both in how many users the system can support, and how many are willing to pay $100/month for internet. That last number is a lot lower than people here think. Almost everyone in built up areas has better access through fiber, and the rural population is either small, or not wealthy enough. $100 is a ton of money for most of the world. Lots of unknowns in the economics still, won't know either way until the entire system is up. Drive an hour from Baltimore and you're in the boonies where your choice is between barely-working DSL or switching between data-capped 4G MiFis on a weekly basis with a $250/mo phone bill plus the bill for the family's phones. HughesNet is still in business for geostationary satellite down link, 56k uplink, with over a second of latency. Their annual revenue is $1.4 billion, charging residential customers $40/mo. How many people are fed up with Comcast and Verizon, and will pay to get away from those two out of spite? Air lines will pay for real time telemetry and to meet passenger expectations. Then you'll have the US and other governments dying to get high speed satellite service anywhere on the globe, no matter the price, because current throughput is so limiting and coverage sucks in places like the middle of the ocean. You're severely underestimating the first world market. And if they can only get $10/mo for 5mbps from some dude with a bone in his nose and some solar panels, it's still better than nothing for both parties. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 6:35:16 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The trouble with Musk Math is it's always hugely optimistic. In the early days they claimed $10B for the entire network. That works out to around 2 million subscribers to break even on a 5 year sat life. Definitely viable but there's been a lot of changes. They're having a ton of trouble getting the lasers working, to the point it's not a guarantee they ever will. Based on their announcements they won't even *start* testing the side to side laser tracking in orbit until 2022. So far they've only done the much simpler front to back. That means nearly all of the sats they're launching now are functionally obsolete and will need to be replaced. Doubling your sat costs makes the economics much harder. Big questions remain both in how many users the system can support, and how many are willing to pay $100/month for internet. That last number is a lot lower than people here think. Almost everyone in built up areas has better access through fiber, and the rural population is either small, or not wealthy enough. $100 is a ton of money for most of the world. Lots of unknowns in the economics still, won't know either way until the entire system is up. It's about $10 more a month in my AO, with similar equipment costs and higher speeds. And I live in a large metro. The choice to switch is easy even for me, since it will add competition to the market. It's gotta be a no-brainer for anybody without fiber in their neighborhood. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 6:40:45 PM EST
[#39]
Put up an iron dome for all I care. When one falls and hits my house I'm gonna be richer than Elon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 7:37:01 PM EST
[#40]
To the people responding to my post, you haven't refuted any of it. Yes, there are individuals who hate their existing fiber and will change. Not millions of them. In Africa you can get service for as little as $20 a phone and $5/month. $499/$100 simply isn't competitive, or even possible for most people in that region. Starlink success is possible but absolutely not guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 7:53:53 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To the people responding to my post, you haven't refuted any of it. Yes, there are individuals who hate their existing fiber and will change. Not millions of them. In Africa you can get service for as little as $20 a phone and $5/month. $499/$100 simply isn't competitive, or even possible for most people in that region. Starlink success is possible but absolutely not guaranteed. I posted earlier about how rural people are going to pay for their Starlink. They'll dump their $125 or higher DirectTV, Dish bills, and their $60- $150 cell data plans. They'll still be money ahead even after adding back a couple of streaming services for TV. BTW, Rural doesn't = poor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:01:14 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Got a pic @Micke ? I am on the list as well, and planning to repurpose the unused Dish Network mount on the side of the cabin.  " /> |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:26:19 PM EST
[#43]
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? No parts will survive reentry |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:34:44 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Elon doesn't give a fuck he'll be on the moon. An' ELON's on da moon! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:39:00 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I posted earlier about how rural people are going to pay for their Starlink. They'll dump their $125 or higher DirectTV, Dish bills, and their $60- $150 cell data plans. They'll still be money ahead even after adding back a couple of streaming services for TV. BTW, Rural doesn't = poor. Sure, but how many? 10s of thousands? Not even remotely enough. Starlink can't replace cell service either, the K band isn't physically capable of hand held service. People that still watch tv through Dish or DirectTV aren't suddenly going to cut the cord and start streaming with Starlink. I'm not saying Starlink can't be profitable, I'm saying they might not be. Currently they most definitely aren't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:45:16 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: To the people responding to my post, you haven't refuted any of it. Yes, there are individuals who hate their existing fiber and will change. Not millions of them. In Africa you can get service for as little as $20 a phone and $5/month. $499/$100 simply isn't competitive, or even possible for most people in that region. Starlink success is possible but absolutely not guaranteed. Guess what, Viagra and Cipro aren't $100 for ten in the Congo either. But they aren't finding a pharmacist behind every tree. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:47:12 PM EST
[#47]
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. SpaceX will have the round trip cost down to $.87 by then so don’t sweat it |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:48:16 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure, but how many? 10s of thousands? Not even remotely enough. Starlink can't replace cell service either, the K band isn't physically capable of hand held service. People that still watch tv through Dish or DirectTV aren't suddenly going to cut the cord and start streaming with Starlink. I'm not saying Starlink can't be profitable, I'm saying they might not be. Currently they most definitely aren't. That is exactly what I plan to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:48:16 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure, but how many? 10s of thousands? Not even remotely enough. Starlink can't replace cell service either, the K band isn't physically capable of hand held service. People that still watch tv through Dish or DirectTV aren't suddenly going to cut the cord and start streaming with Starlink. I'm not saying Starlink can't be profitable, I'm saying they might not be. Currently they most definitely aren't. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I posted earlier about how rural people are going to pay for their Starlink. They'll dump their $125 or higher DirectTV, Dish bills, and their $60- $150 cell data plans. They'll still be money ahead even after adding back a couple of streaming services for TV. BTW, Rural doesn't = poor. Sure, but how many? 10s of thousands? Not even remotely enough. Starlink can't replace cell service either, the K band isn't physically capable of hand held service. People that still watch tv through Dish or DirectTV aren't suddenly going to cut the cord and start streaming with Starlink. I'm not saying Starlink can't be profitable, I'm saying they might not be. Currently they most definitely aren't. Why couldn't you stream with Starlink? They're going to increase the throughput to 300Mbps this year, up from 100Mbps. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2021 8:48:55 PM EST
[#50]
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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's exactly what they do. The satellites have something like a 5 year lifespan before they de-orbit. They are very small so nothing will reach the surface anyway. They will be constantly updating and replenishing them. They are cheap enough to do that considering spaceX also owns the rockets launching them. 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. If you go more than a few miles outside the city their price point and claimed speeds are very attractive. And I literally mean a few miles outside the city. |
|
|
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.
