We managed to deploy LTE speeds to the worlds most remote landscapes to serve a few hundred million and all it took was the wholesale destruction of the ozone
SpaceX is Elon Musk's last big hustle, and with its finances hidden from view everyone is sure that this one is gonna be huge money maker. The sooner people realize that Musk's companies are never big money makers, and that Starlink is a niche product for techbro homesteaders/van lifers, the better.
It's right there, in public disclosures: SpaceX has 85% of the launch market, and still has to fill over half its launches with satellites for an internet service that Musk himself says is "financially weak." They lowered cost through scale, the market didn't develop, and Starlink is a "sales bank"
Musk, as usual responds to the utter failure of the core concept of SpaceX (lower cost, grow the market for launch) by doubling down: an even bigger rocket, with even lower costs, launching a totally new Starlink network made up of much bigger satellites. It's the same bet, with a janky metal rocket
"85%" based on counting their own payloads (Starlink). If you exclude that, because that's not actually part of the "market" then it's quite lower. Still a significant player, but not actually the dominant juggernaut people imagine it is
The thing is I think the finances on SpaceX are really really bad because of all the Starlink/Starship costs. Like insanely bad. Like 'punch through the meme stock barrier' bad. Because otherwise why hasn't there been an IPO for the other investors to cash out?
There is hollow-core fiber now that transmits the signal at ~0.95c, vs. the current ~0.66c of standard fiber.
And if you're really concerned about latency, you get a boatload of money and order microwave services. Just be ready to pay 5-figures a month per Gig.
There is a youtube channel called Common Sense Skeptic that does great coverage of SpaceX and Tesla. They've made some pretty convincing arguments about Starlink not really being economically viable long term and definitely not at the scale Musk talks about.
It gets a lot more viable though if you lie to the government and convince them that your crappy satellite dispenser rocket could get to Mars, and get said government to fund its development as a result.
There was a brief window where the tech media were caught up in Kessler syndrome and the importance of cleaning up space, harpooning old space junk.. and then..
Starlink.. oooh shiny, and they never spoke of that again.
I'd have to look for it, but remember an episode of @danahull.bsky.social's Elon, Inc. podcast that addressed the astonishing rate of reentry/burnout of Starlink satellites. It's a huge cost/problem that doesn't get much press!
I believe his goal is a total network of around 60,000 satellites. With a lifespan of 5 years, that’s 12,000 satellites per year re-entering the atmosphere. 1,000 per month. It’s absolutely crazy that this was ever permitted.
I mean the low super-low orbit altitude and thus short lifespan of these things is probably the only thing preventing them from Kessler Syndroming the Earth, so I'll take it.
And that undersells the power of fiber - here in Switzerland we already have a provider offering 25Gbps, 10Gbps or 1Gbps for 77 bucks per month over fiber. (only price difference is on the install fee)
Fiber is more prone to the fiber-eating-backhoe, but then again you can't repair a satellite with one person showing up in a splicing van in an afternoon.
Apples to oranges, Starlink is a game changer for rural areas and places that don't have fibre infrastructure. I hate that I have to use it but in New Zealand at least it's the only sensible option for many locations outside of the main urban areas.
if you read the rest of the thread, you will see that I'm not saying it doesn't have a use case, I'm saying that the concept doesn't scale or deliver the efficiencies needed to deliver the scale and profitability people expect. I'm critiquing the business case.
Scalability is the issue. Until someone can define how many base-stations per square mile it can support, we don't even know the order of magnitude.
It works well in really remote areas, but the eventual solution will be fiber along utility ROW, connected to cell/radio managed by the community.
Probably most of these re-entries are the older models that have spent fuel cells. They only have about 6000 or so "moves" in space they can make to avoid debris or other satellites. After that, they must be made to re-enter and burn up. I'm sure some are just failures too, though.
Plus, you run the fiber into a filter, and now you have 40 channels at 1.2 terabits/sec, over a single pair of fibers. And when 48 terabits/sec isn't enough, turn up the next pair of fibers, another 48 terabits/sec.
To double the bandwidth of Starlink, you just need to duplicate the universe.
Comments
Politicians within the @democrats.org are in minority both on Congress & Senate.
So, its the people who have the power - to change.
Boycott RED States.
That may pave the way to flip Congress & Senate.
And if you're really concerned about latency, you get a boatload of money and order microwave services. Just be ready to pay 5-figures a month per Gig.
Starlink.. oooh shiny, and they never spoke of that again.
cables are better. They work in all weather, too.
It works well in really remote areas, but the eventual solution will be fiber along utility ROW, connected to cell/radio managed by the community.
To double the bandwidth of Starlink, you just need to duplicate the universe.