7 ms·
SpaceX ships 100k Starlink terminals to customers
- inglor_cz 5y agoOne of the defining qualities of Starlink for me is the relatively fast iteration rate for the satellites. Satellites on low orbits are expected to last for a few years only. Unlike Iridium etc., they are not designed for a decade of service. Thus the customers can expect their service to improve over years, probably significantly so. The beta bandwidth is 100 Mbps downlink, but I would expect 1 Gbps within a decade.
- the-dude 5y agoUntil the launching stops and the constellation crumbles.
- inglor_cz 5y agoThat likely won't happen unless the service becomes unprofitable. Which, given the demand for fast internet around the world and the drop in launch prices, can only happen through competition.
- iptrans 5y agoThe key question is, how much does it cost to run Starlink? This will determine how many customers they need to stay afloat. The second key question is, are there enough customers that can pay $100 per month for service? If not, Starlink will crumble. You have to be fairly affluent to be able to afford $1200 per year for Internet service. If you can afford it, a lot of people would like to sell you terrestrial service for less.
- inglor_cz 5y agoRemembering the advent of the Internet in the Czech Republic of the late 1990s, people will share connections. Regardless of EULAs. Hell, people even shared dial-ups. Like, 56 kbps for three neighboring units on a single floor. It sucked, but it was much better than nothing. That is what I expect in poorer countries to happen. Starlink may claim that one terminal is meant for one household only, but they will silently tolerate connection sharing as long as it gives them penetration. And third world metropolises aren't exactly penetrated by optic networks. So the alternative is probably an overloaded 4G network.
- _ph_ 5y agoUnfortunately, that is not the case. Fast network connections in Germany are really difficult to get in some regions. Recently the government even issued free vouchers for the Starlink setup fee to people who couldn't get a fast wired connection. This is of course a failure to regulate the telecommunication giants, which get fat and rich in the big cities, but are not good at connecting remote locations (this doesn't earn them money). On the other side, Starlink was very helpful in setting up emergency WLAN hotspots in the disaster area of the recent floodings.
- inglor_cz 5y ago"Starlink was very helpful in setting up emergency WLAN hotspots in the disaster area of the recent floodings." I really liked that, it was a good illustration of how global orbital coverage can improve lives even in rich countries.
- piva00 5y agoThe market I can see for Starlink has probably increased after 2020: affluent people living outside of major cities where internet service is spotty or slow. If there is some real movement of people in office jobs now working 100% remotely moving to the countryside I can see how Starlink would be a good proposal. It's a small increase in internet costs with a much lower cost of living than in a city.
- joakleaf 5y agoIt is actually not clear to me if the service will become profitable: Elon Musk recently said SpaceX needs $30 billion for Starlink to survive[1] (meaning it isn't profitable now). He also said that they are aiming for 42000 satellites. And he said, that they are losing money on the Starlink terminals ($500 / unit). Starlink is $99/month. If a Falcon 9 carries about 60 SL satellites, and they are aiming for 40000 satellites in orbit, that means they need to do 666 Falcon 9 launches every 5 years. That's 11/month, btw. Even, if reused Falcon 9 launches are as cheap $10 million/launch (I don't think anyone outside SpaceX knows the actual price). That's $6.7 billion in launch costs alone every 5 years. $6.7B/(60 months * $99/(month*customer)) = 1,127,947 customers So they need at least 1,127,947 paying customers to cover launch costs alone just to renew the sky-side of the network. That doesn't include the cost of producing the satellites, ground infrastructure (including terminals), bandwidth cost when connecting to the rest of the internet, staff, marketing, etc. Now, of course, Starship may make the launches cheaper, and 1.1 million customers is not completely unlikely. However, if he already foresee the need of $30 billion now, their costs are probably significantly higher than my estimated launch costs above. So let's hope we will not be left with an abandoned constellation of satellites that ends up causing the Kessler Syndrome, because SpaceX abandons the endeavour or goes bankrupt 5 years from now. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-starlink-spacex-bankruptcy-funding-30-billion-2021-6?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-starlink-spacex-ba...
- inglor_cz 5y agoYou won't get Kessler syndrome that low. Orbital decay is significant at Starlink altitudes. Kessler syndrome is a worry higher up, but not here. Even if the entire fleet was abandoned and satellites started crashing into one another, the debris would have been gone in 5 years at most, probably three. For future profitability of the scheme, I consider the terminal price to be pretty important. They cannot really afford to lose money on it long term. Fortunately, manufacturability tends to improve over time.
- Bombthecat 5y agoI don't see any issue with getting 2 million customers on a global scale...
- JshWright 5y agoHow long do you think a terrestrial internet connection would last if the ISP that owned it stopped maintaining it?
- mempko 5y agoIt's a lot easier to maintain a terrestrial internet connection since you don't have to know how to build rockets.
- iptrans 5y agoA really, really long time, as long as there is power. Modern fiber optic networks are really robust and will keep on chugging with minimal to no upkeep. Problems mainly arise when lightning fries equipment or backhoes run amok. It’s a whole different ballgame, both in terms of bandwidth and upkeep, compared to needing to continuously launch new satellites.
- the-dude 5y agoI recall a second hand story where AT&T technicians visited LA? after the quake and the phone switches were free floating in the air hanging from their cabling.
- inglor_cz 5y agoIf you live in a geologically stable place, yes. Quite a large share of world population does not. Including rich places like Japan, which is part of the Pacific ring of fire. Even in a former mining city where I was born, the soil shifts quite a bit, as the abandoned mine shafts underneath are filled with water and collapse. It sometimes has an effect on networks that are dug in.
- sebzim4500 5y agoOk but if the company shuts down they would also shut down the base stations so the satellites would be useless anyway.
- the-dude 5y agoThe company needs not to be shut down, but could, for example, be acquired by Bain Capital.
- GuB-42 5y agoIf only they had cheap, reusable rockets... Seriously, I really think that Starlink main purpose is to justify SpaceX rockets. It is nice having reusable rockets, but if you don't have anything to launch, that's useless. Currently, the market for satellites is limited, so SpaceX created its own market. Sounds like a smart move, but we'll see.
- joakleaf 5y agoWhile I understand your line of thinking, I think is bizarre that short life span is seen as good thing in a world, where we should probably be careful with how we use every single resource for the sake of the environment and future generations.
- AYBABTME 5y agoIf you think about it, the satellites disintegrate in the atmosphere, reseeding the planet with whatever elements they're made of. Same as how many elements on Earth comes from asteroids!
- joakleaf 5y agoI understand you, but I suspect that scattering atoms of e.g. rare earth metals across the planet makes them difficult to reuse. Would probably be much easier, if the materials stay together.
- adwn 5y agoTrace amounts of any element, whether in soil, water, or air, are basically useless, because they can't be mined economically. Even rare and valuable elements like platinum are only mined where they've been concentrated by geological processes over millions or billions of years. Sometimes you'll see bold claims about the abundance of certain elements backed by the fact that they exist in ppm or even ppb [1] concentrations in Earth's crust, conveniently ignoring the infeasibility of processing teratonnes of material (and completely destroying huge parts of Earth's surface area). [1] ppm/ppb = parts per million/billion
- leetrout 5y agoI placed my order quite some time ago and before several of my friends. My friends have received theirs but I have not heard anything about my order. I am disappointed they lied about order fulfillment taking place in the order received. Edit to add: we ordered within a month of each other and two of us live 20-30 miles apart so "our area" (central NC) should be active.
- Douger 5y agoFILO is certainly one of the more frustrating consumer experiences. I wonder if they've changed inventory/ ordering systems in the time between your order and your friend's?
- leetrout 5y agoWe ordered within a month of each other in one case.
- Isinlor 5y agoAre you in the same area?
- leetrout 5y agoYes. As the crow flies about 20-30 miles apart.
- the_duke 5y agoIt's perfectly possible that you are in a different cell that would have bad coverage is SpaceX were to open it up, while somewhere 20 miles over is just fine.
- leetrout 5y agoPlease cite a source. Per https://sebsebmc.github.io/starlink-coverage/index.html https://sebsebmc.github.io/starlink-coverage/index.html we are in the same cell
- kome 5y agoI want the black sky back, instead of space litter put by billionaires without any accountability
- drcross 5y agoLet me guess, you already have internet so it's no skin off your back to try to pull up the ladder on others.
- Kutta 5y agoI would also guess they don't give a fuck about the night sky either.
- Isinlor 5y agoThe location of satellites is regulated mostly by USA federal agencies. The satelites will also fall back within 2-5 years when abandoned or broken. SpaceX has also obligation to make their satellites 100% demisable with nothing getting to the ground. Besides that you can not see them on the night sky even in rural areas. And they are fully invisible in cities with enormous light pollution. The only time when they are visible to naked eye is right after launch.
- dgan 5y agoAh yes, spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. What a sustainable way to provide connection.
- dgan 5y agoOh interesting, down votes? Why though, did I say something incorrectly? What I said is EXACTLY what SpaceX is proposing. Oh well
- Kutta 5y agoAre you literally not aware that all pieces of internet infrastructure currently in use have to be replaced every N years?
- stuaxo 5y agoThis doesn't involve littering our sky.
- db48x 5y agoYou consider a few thousand satellites hundreds of miles above the surface of the earth to be litter, but the existing network of cables is beneath your notice? The internet is a web of copper, plastic, and glass that literally touches every place on Earth. It’s like a fungus that grows beneath our feet and over our heads.
- dgan 5y agoAh great argument. "Look there is so much trash in this world, let me add even more trash"
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y agoThat buried cable has decades of service life and doesn't require tons of rocket fuel to put it where it is useful.
- AlstZam 5y agoSorry but i have difficulty to understand Starlink business : who are really their potentials customers ? It seems there is only a few possibilities : - rural area (with sufficient incomes to afford the price) - urban area with highly expensive/bad quality landline internet (but still with sufficient incomes to afford the price) With the development of fiber in most urban area (usually fist in high income part) and the small number in the first category, I don't see how deploying tens of thousands of satellites could be profitable. The only option will be to be able to lower the price but it will need a lot of customers... Could you help me understand ?
- inglor_cz 5y agoThis is a global network. Population of the world is around 8 billion. Even if some countries like China ban Starlink for political reasons, you should be able to find tens of millions of customers among the rest. There are a lot of places where local providers act like robber barons.
- AlstZam 5y ago> There are a lot of places where local providers act like robber barons. I agree, this may be the best effect Starlink can have : create competition. > Population of the world is around 8 billion Yes but which part is able to afford 99$/month (+antenna) + bad local provider which refuse to adapt to competition (first at price/offer level before even infrastructure) + no political reason for a global-us based provider ?
- inglor_cz 5y ago"bad local provider which refuse to adapt to competition (first at price/offer level before even infrastructure)" They may find themselves unable to. Cable (including optic cable) networks are not that easy to build everywhere, including some tightly packed cities. And wireless has its limitations too. "which part is able to afford 99$/month (+antenna) " Easy. People will share connections, regardless of what the contract says. And Starlink will likely tolerate it in poorer countries.
- jakedata 5y agoI cancelled my preorder and they refunded my deposit very quickly. The killer for me was the power consumption of Dishy McFlatface and the associated router. My location is limited to solar and batteries off-grid. According to early testers the dish consumed nearly 100 watts continuously and potentially quite a bit more when it decided to go into defrost mode. Without major upgrades that would consume my entire power reserve in very short order.