4 ms·

Ah yes, spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. What a sustainable way to provide connection.

by dgan 5y ago

dgan 5y ago
Oh interesting, down votes? Why though, did I say something incorrectly? What I said is EXACTLY what SpaceX is proposing. Oh well
- Kutta 5y ago
  Are you literally not aware that all pieces of internet infrastructure currently in use have to be replaced every N years?
  - stuaxo 5y ago
    This doesn't involve littering our sky.
    - db48x 5y ago
      You 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 ago
        Ah great argument. "Look there is so much trash in this world, let me add even more trash"
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        That buried cable has decades of service life and doesn't require tons of rocket fuel to put it where it is useful.
        db48x 5y ago
        I think you might be surprised just how many electronic devices have to be installed along that cable for it to function. All of those devices have to be replaced regularly. If you keep your eyes open, you can see them all over the city you live in. Big grey metal cabinets on every block, some of them under a metal cover that hundreds of people walk over every day without a second thought, others disguised with artwork. Anonymous concrete buildings scattered all over, some of them disguised as houses or businesses. Some of this infrastructure is needed for each customer, and some of it needed per mile. Rural customers need a lot more of the latter type. And all of it is delivered and installed using gasoline or diesel. And it all has to be replaced far more often than the cables themselves. The modem you have in your house is functionally obsolete after just a few years, and will probably never be reused. The rest of the infrastructure will be replaced on the same timescale as well. There is a reason why rural customers have such a hard time getting decent internet service, and why satellite internet is more economical for them. It’s not immediately obvious to me that the infrastructure cost of Starlink service is larger than the cost of your cable service. You cannot condemn satellite internet services simply because they use a lot of satellites without also condemning terrestrial internet services. And if it is at all worthwhile for you to have fast internet access in the city, then it is equally worthwhile for folk living in rural areas to have fast internet access too.
    - squarefoot 5y ago
      Just to keep some perspective on the numbers, all Starlink satellites launched so far, I mean all of them together, don't make the MTOW of three Boeing 747s or ten 737s.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        Does that include the fuel burned to put them in orbit?
        squarefoot 5y ago
        If you count the fuel used to keep planes flying I wouldn't be surprised if the satellites launches actually polluted a lot less. Don't forget that every launch, although surely consuming a lot more fuel than an airplane, brings in orbit 60 satellites, and there have been about 30 of them so far. I you compare these figures to the thousands planes flying every day, it should give a very different perspective. Please note that I'm against pollution as you, also I am not a Tesla or Musk fan; they make great products, but that doesn't prevent me to think he's an absolute ass.
  - dgan 5y ago
    Are you really comparing bridges to be replaced every 50 years, and regular satellites expected to operate for 2 decades, with these Spacex sattelites which are expected to last 5 years? You are being dishonest here
    - AYBABTME 5y ago
      Networking equipment is replaced more frequently than every 50y.
      - dgan 5y ago
        sigh regular satelites are expected tor run for 20 years. Yeah.
        AYBABTME 5y ago
        So you're saying we shouldn't put networking equipment of the sort in LEO? I don't understand your position. Switches in datacenters and deployed to provide internet to consumers are thrown away very frequently, and LEO satellites don't pollute their orbits with debris since unpowered flight at these altitudes regresses due to atmospheric drag (that's a desirable outcome). The timing works out. I prefer this to an alternative where a failed constellation would be left as garbage to orbit the planet for decades/centuries. And I'd bet a few thousand satellites in space (including fuel used to put it up there) has an overall lower impact in the environment than the sprawling equipment and cabling needed to do the same coverage if using ground technologies (including all the resources used to install and maintain said equipment, and ecological damage).
    - rand49an 5y ago
      Residential broadband involves millions of items such as switches, transceivers and billions of miles of cables. Much of this is replaced every 5 years by ISPs. Not even taking wireless routers into account which are probably replaced much sooner than that. I'd imagine Starlink at least has less impact than our current infrastructure.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  There are a few subjects that engage the downvote hivemind reaction on HN, one of them is implying that Elon Musk might not shit cinnamon roll scented gold. It is probably going to be particularly bad in this thread because pretty much everyone hates their ISP and is excited for an alternative that doesn't need to deal with every single municipality separately the way Google Fiber did.
- matz1 5y ago
  Because its not a junk. Its doing something useful.
- sebzim4500 5y ago
  > did I say something incorrectly? Yes? Active satellites are not space junk.
  - dgan 5y ago
    They become so after 5 years, and we yet to see them falling like rain after that period
    - matz1 5y ago
      When the satellite expires it deorbit and destroyed. In a way its self cleaning.
kiba 5y ago
Not really. The satellites burn up in the atmosphere, returning the elements back where it came from. It also means there are less space junk in orbit, where it can do the most harm. That's why it's in a low orbit. Otherwise, orbital debris could potentially accumulates, making space access impossible.
- dgan 5y ago
  There is no way you can convince a sane person that launching TENS OF THOUSANDS of satellites every 5 years is somehow more eco friendly than launching 3 (! yeah, three). You are completely out of touch with reality.
inglor_cz 5y ago
How often do you change your own hardware? Are you still running a Celeron from 2000 or a Nokia from 2010? If yes, kudos to you. If not, you are being hypocritical.
- dgan 5y ago
  Are you even serious? Cluttering the sky with THOUSANDS of sattelites is okey, while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites, that operate for decades? This is absolutely the worse way of providing Low to Medium quality connection to richest world, at the expense of everyone else. I am running my half broken laptop from 2016,that I d hope, would last much longer.
  - adwn 5y ago
    > while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites They really don't. Not in terms of bandwidth, not in terms of latency, and not in terms of maximum number of serviceable customers.
    - dgan 5y ago
      Current offers are 50mpbs on a working infrastructure, for 50$ per month. Starlink now, is a 120mpbs in ideal conditions, for 100$ per month, 500$ upfront and thousands of spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. Sorry but I dont see how is that game changer. You won't (I hope) play online shooters with satellite link, latency is a meager consolation
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        High latency isn't just concern for the gamers. It matters to people holding online meetings or working on remote desktops. Which means almost everyone who wants to work from home.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    I am being serious. Cluttering of the sky is unfortunate, but people in the 19th century were really unhappy about electric wires or wagons without horses and we cope now. There are almost 8 billion people on this planet and we cannot expect them to enjoy certain standard of living without some sacrifices. If Starlink parameters are Low to Medium for you, I wonder what your standards are. Perhaps you are very fortunate in where you live (a major urban center of a first world country?). An alternative to Starlink would be a very extensive network of optic cables all around, and it certainly isn't clear to me at all that this would be eco-friendlier than Starlink. I also don't think that Starlink is going to be a first world project only. On the contrary, I think its biggest impact will be in the poorer part of the world. People there will likely share connections (100 USD a month is quite a lot in poorer countries), but still. Even a 10 Mbps shared connection is a huge deal for someone in Kinshasa. The worst obstacle will actually be politics. Starlink won't be easily controlled/censored by politicians, so I expect them to hate it and go out of their way to ban it. As for the laptop: yeah, 2016. Reasonably good hardware, you can run Windows 10 on it. But you wouldn't use PC hardware from 2000. The innovation cycle is real, only its length is different in various branches of industry. The oldest computer I run is from 2008 and it is noticeably energy hungry; I am not sure if at this point, swapping it for something new wouldn't be easier on the Earth. Not a simple calculation at all.

Ah yes, spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. What a sustainable way to provide connection.

by dgan 5y ago

Ah yes, spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. What a sustainable way to provide connection.

dgan 5y ago

Oh interesting, down votes? Why though, did I say something incorrectly? What I said is EXACTLY what SpaceX is proposing. Oh well

Kutta 5y ago
Are you literally not aware that all pieces of internet infrastructure currently in use have to be replaced every N years?
- stuaxo 5y ago
  This doesn't involve littering our sky.
  - db48x 5y ago
    You 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 ago
      Ah great argument. "Look there is so much trash in this world, let me add even more trash"
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      That buried cable has decades of service life and doesn't require tons of rocket fuel to put it where it is useful.
      - db48x 5y ago
        I think you might be surprised just how many electronic devices have to be installed along that cable for it to function. All of those devices have to be replaced regularly. If you keep your eyes open, you can see them all over the city you live in. Big grey metal cabinets on every block, some of them under a metal cover that hundreds of people walk over every day without a second thought, others disguised with artwork. Anonymous concrete buildings scattered all over, some of them disguised as houses or businesses. Some of this infrastructure is needed for each customer, and some of it needed per mile. Rural customers need a lot more of the latter type. And all of it is delivered and installed using gasoline or diesel. And it all has to be replaced far more often than the cables themselves. The modem you have in your house is functionally obsolete after just a few years, and will probably never be reused. The rest of the infrastructure will be replaced on the same timescale as well. There is a reason why rural customers have such a hard time getting decent internet service, and why satellite internet is more economical for them. It’s not immediately obvious to me that the infrastructure cost of Starlink service is larger than the cost of your cable service. You cannot condemn satellite internet services simply because they use a lot of satellites without also condemning terrestrial internet services. And if it is at all worthwhile for you to have fast internet access in the city, then it is equally worthwhile for folk living in rural areas to have fast internet access too.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Just to keep some perspective on the numbers, all Starlink satellites launched so far, I mean all of them together, don't make the MTOW of three Boeing 747s or ten 737s.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Does that include the fuel burned to put them in orbit?
      - squarefoot 5y ago
        If you count the fuel used to keep planes flying I wouldn't be surprised if the satellites launches actually polluted a lot less. Don't forget that every launch, although surely consuming a lot more fuel than an airplane, brings in orbit 60 satellites, and there have been about 30 of them so far. I you compare these figures to the thousands planes flying every day, it should give a very different perspective. Please note that I'm against pollution as you, also I am not a Tesla or Musk fan; they make great products, but that doesn't prevent me to think he's an absolute ass.
- dgan 5y ago
  Are you really comparing bridges to be replaced every 50 years, and regular satellites expected to operate for 2 decades, with these Spacex sattelites which are expected to last 5 years? You are being dishonest here
  - AYBABTME 5y ago
    Networking equipment is replaced more frequently than every 50y.
    - dgan 5y ago
      sigh regular satelites are expected tor run for 20 years. Yeah.
      - AYBABTME 5y ago
        So you're saying we shouldn't put networking equipment of the sort in LEO? I don't understand your position. Switches in datacenters and deployed to provide internet to consumers are thrown away very frequently, and LEO satellites don't pollute their orbits with debris since unpowered flight at these altitudes regresses due to atmospheric drag (that's a desirable outcome). The timing works out. I prefer this to an alternative where a failed constellation would be left as garbage to orbit the planet for decades/centuries. And I'd bet a few thousand satellites in space (including fuel used to put it up there) has an overall lower impact in the environment than the sprawling equipment and cabling needed to do the same coverage if using ground technologies (including all the resources used to install and maintain said equipment, and ecological damage).
  - rand49an 5y ago
    Residential broadband involves millions of items such as switches, transceivers and billions of miles of cables. Much of this is replaced every 5 years by ISPs. Not even taking wireless routers into account which are probably replaced much sooner than that. I'd imagine Starlink at least has less impact than our current infrastructure.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
There are a few subjects that engage the downvote hivemind reaction on HN, one of them is implying that Elon Musk might not shit cinnamon roll scented gold. It is probably going to be particularly bad in this thread because pretty much everyone hates their ISP and is excited for an alternative that doesn't need to deal with every single municipality separately the way Google Fiber did.
matz1 5y ago
Because its not a junk. Its doing something useful.
sebzim4500 5y ago
> did I say something incorrectly? Yes? Active satellites are not space junk.
- dgan 5y ago
  They become so after 5 years, and we yet to see them falling like rain after that period
  - matz1 5y ago
    When the satellite expires it deorbit and destroyed. In a way its self cleaning.

kiba 5y ago

Not really. The satellites burn up in the atmosphere, returning the elements back where it came from. It also means there are less space junk in orbit, where it can do the most harm. That's why it's in a low orbit. Otherwise, orbital debris could potentially accumulates, making space access impossible.

dgan 5y ago
There is no way you can convince a sane person that launching TENS OF THOUSANDS of satellites every 5 years is somehow more eco friendly than launching 3 (! yeah, three). You are completely out of touch with reality.

inglor_cz 5y ago

How often do you change your own hardware? Are you still running a Celeron from 2000 or a Nokia from 2010? If yes, kudos to you. If not, you are being hypocritical.

dgan 5y ago
Are you even serious? Cluttering the sky with THOUSANDS of sattelites is okey, while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites, that operate for decades? This is absolutely the worse way of providing Low to Medium quality connection to richest world, at the expense of everyone else. I am running my half broken laptop from 2016,that I d hope, would last much longer.
- adwn 5y ago
  > while other providers offer comparable service with.. 3 sattelites They really don't. Not in terms of bandwidth, not in terms of latency, and not in terms of maximum number of serviceable customers.
  - dgan 5y ago
    Current offers are 50mpbs on a working infrastructure, for 50$ per month. Starlink now, is a 120mpbs in ideal conditions, for 100$ per month, 500$ upfront and thousands of spacejunk to be replaced every 5 years. Sorry but I dont see how is that game changer. You won't (I hope) play online shooters with satellite link, latency is a meager consolation
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      High latency isn't just concern for the gamers. It matters to people holding online meetings or working on remote desktops. Which means almost everyone who wants to work from home.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  I am being serious. Cluttering of the sky is unfortunate, but people in the 19th century were really unhappy about electric wires or wagons without horses and we cope now. There are almost 8 billion people on this planet and we cannot expect them to enjoy certain standard of living without some sacrifices. If Starlink parameters are Low to Medium for you, I wonder what your standards are. Perhaps you are very fortunate in where you live (a major urban center of a first world country?). An alternative to Starlink would be a very extensive network of optic cables all around, and it certainly isn't clear to me at all that this would be eco-friendlier than Starlink. I also don't think that Starlink is going to be a first world project only. On the contrary, I think its biggest impact will be in the poorer part of the world. People there will likely share connections (100 USD a month is quite a lot in poorer countries), but still. Even a 10 Mbps shared connection is a huge deal for someone in Kinshasa. The worst obstacle will actually be politics. Starlink won't be easily controlled/censored by politicians, so I expect them to hate it and go out of their way to ban it. As for the laptop: yeah, 2016. Reasonably good hardware, you can run Windows 10 on it. But you wouldn't use PC hardware from 2000. The innovation cycle is real, only its length is different in various branches of industry. The oldest computer I run is from 2008 and it is noticeably energy hungry; I am not sure if at this point, swapping it for something new wouldn't be easier on the Earth. Not a simple calculation at all.