4 ms·

FCC actually gave Spacex 900 million to put those things up there. So Musk will profit at our expense. Are all his businesses government subsidized? I could st

by mempko 6y ago

FCC actually gave Spacex 900 million to put those things up there. So Musk will profit at our expense. Are all his businesses government subsidized? I could still see the trail of them before dusk so it appears it isn't working. edit: the experts agree that spacex didn't do enough to reduce reflectivity and that it's still an issue. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-are-better-but-not-perfect-say-astronomers/ https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

kitsunesoba 6y ago
If you're seeing trains of satellites, those have not yet reached their parking orbits and have not oriented themselves or deployed their sunshades. Once they've gotten to where they're intended to be, they'll become far more dim and for the most part should only be visible during a brief period around dusk.
- mempko 6y ago
  So they haven't solved the reflectivity issue? Solving it would mean they aren't visible at all with the naked eye. Since there are thousands of them, this is a problem for land based observation no? edit: looks like it's still a problem according to experts. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-are-better-but-not-perfect-say-astronomers/ https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...
aerovistae 6y ago
"at our expense"? You clearly don't have to deal with rural internet if you think this is a net loss for society.
- mempko 6y ago
  It could have been a non-profit operation no? I would expect rural internet to be cheaper than what SpaceX is charging. $100 per month is very expensive, especially for people in rural areas which generally are poorer. Example, I believe over 90% of rural china has high speed internet and they pay less than $10 a month. Edit. Anyone have a good argument why we can't get $10 per month high speed internet in rural areas in the USA? If spacex can get there costs down to $10 per month, then I will be impressed. Otherwise it isn't cheaper than laying fiber.
  - smoldesu 6y ago
    The whole point of this is that it isn't a non-profit, though. I'd love to live in a world where we can snap our fingers and motivate people to build $1/month internet, but that's not even a remote possibility. Starlink's big boon was that someone with money saw a problem and invested a ton of money into fixing it, hoping to turn a profit in the long-term. I'd love for someone to run fiber out to my house, but even getting it to my neighborhood would start at $30,000. Enter Starlink: cut out the landline companies and offer good internet, forcing the big players to offer better services in order to compete. Also, if you think $100/month is expensive, you don't go shopping for rural internet very often. There isn't an ISP on the planet that offers the speeds or latency that Starlink has right now, and believe me, I've tried to find one. $500 for installation and $100/month is reasonably appropriate for the services they're providing, especially if they're taking a $1000-2000 loss on each dish they ship to customers.
    - new_realist 6y ago
      Have you tried an LTE or 5G access point? They cover roughly 97% of the U.S. population. And you don't have to pay for Internet and also pay for mobile service.
      - smoldesu 6y ago
        I have an LTE access point, it's a pretty bad experience. For one, latency is very high. It's so laggy over SSH that it's basically unusable, and you can forget any VOIP apps with how choppy it is. Speeds are serviceable, but it doesn't really matter since I can't buy an LTE access point without a data cap.
    - mempko 6y ago
      Couldn't we have a publically owned ISP? Also Starlink is already subsidized with public money to the tune of $900 million. Seems we are getting the worst of both worlds. We pay to build the infrastructure with public money but as a public we don't own any of it.
  - kitsunesoba 6y ago

by mempko 6y ago

kitsunesoba 6y ago

If you're seeing trains of satellites, those have not yet reached their parking orbits and have not oriented themselves or deployed their sunshades. Once they've gotten to where they're intended to be, they'll become far more dim and for the most part should only be visible during a brief period around dusk.

mempko 6y ago
So they haven't solved the reflectivity issue? Solving it would mean they aren't visible at all with the naked eye. Since there are thousands of them, this is a problem for land based observation no? edit: looks like it's still a problem according to experts. https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-are-better-but-not-perfect-say-astronomers/ https://physicsworld.com/a/dark-coated-starlink-satellites-a...

aerovistae 6y ago

"at our expense"? You clearly don't have to deal with rural internet if you think this is a net loss for society.

mempko 6y ago
It could have been a non-profit operation no? I would expect rural internet to be cheaper than what SpaceX is charging. $100 per month is very expensive, especially for people in rural areas which generally are poorer. Example, I believe over 90% of rural china has high speed internet and they pay less than $10 a month. Edit. Anyone have a good argument why we can't get $10 per month high speed internet in rural areas in the USA? If spacex can get there costs down to $10 per month, then I will be impressed. Otherwise it isn't cheaper than laying fiber.
- smoldesu 6y ago
  The whole point of this is that it isn't a non-profit, though. I'd love to live in a world where we can snap our fingers and motivate people to build $1/month internet, but that's not even a remote possibility. Starlink's big boon was that someone with money saw a problem and invested a ton of money into fixing it, hoping to turn a profit in the long-term. I'd love for someone to run fiber out to my house, but even getting it to my neighborhood would start at $30,000. Enter Starlink: cut out the landline companies and offer good internet, forcing the big players to offer better services in order to compete. Also, if you think $100/month is expensive, you don't go shopping for rural internet very often. There isn't an ISP on the planet that offers the speeds or latency that Starlink has right now, and believe me, I've tried to find one. $500 for installation and $100/month is reasonably appropriate for the services they're providing, especially if they're taking a $1000-2000 loss on each dish they ship to customers.
  - new_realist 6y ago
    Have you tried an LTE or 5G access point? They cover roughly 97% of the U.S. population. And you don't have to pay for Internet and also pay for mobile service.
    - smoldesu 6y ago
      I have an LTE access point, it's a pretty bad experience. For one, latency is very high. It's so laggy over SSH that it's basically unusable, and you can forget any VOIP apps with how choppy it is. Speeds are serviceable, but it doesn't really matter since I can't buy an LTE access point without a data cap.
  - mempko 6y ago
    Couldn't we have a publically owned ISP? Also Starlink is already subsidized with public money to the tune of $900 million. Seems we are getting the worst of both worlds. We pay to build the infrastructure with public money but as a public we don't own any of it.
- kitsunesoba 6y ago