26 ms·

I read an opinion piece somewhere that Starlink is just busy work to keep SpaceX launching rockets, but because gestures at Google I can’t find it. This Twitter

I read an opinion piece somewhere that Starlink is just busy work to keep SpaceX launching rockets, but because gestures at Google I can’t find it. This Twitter thread nakes this theory plausible.

WHATDOESIT 4y ago
Wasn't that exactly the plan publicized by Musk?
wmf 4y ago
It doesn't make sense to lose money on every rocket launch but make it up in volume. It's more accurate to say that reusable rockets and a LEO satellite constellation can form a mutually-reinforcing flywheel that will lower costs for the eventual Martian fleet.
aardvarkr 4y ago
Why can’t it be both? It absorbs excess capacity, allowing spacex to expand their capacity and achieve economies of scale that are unmatched in the modern world of rocketry while also setting up an exciting new revenue stream that will move them away from relying on government contracts. It also helps them win support from republicans as it serves rural communities and is an example of business innovation that the GOP can support which should help them win more govt contracts. Lots of win-win-win opportunities here
modeless 4y ago
Starlink is absolutely a way to keep SpaceX launching rockets, but that doesn't make it busywork. It's revolutionary and immensely valuable. And, any theorized environmental impact has to be compared to the existing natural process of space dust falling into the atmosphere, and measured against the saved costs worldwide of wires and cell towers and travel not needed, especially as capacity increases in the future. Which is practically impossible to measure, but failing to account for difficult-to-measure costs is a classic error people make when evaluating things like this. And of course there's the extra benefits of coverage over oceans and poles and to ships and planes that you can't get any other way.
- palata 4y ago
  What about: "measured against the potential saved [...], before realizing that in the end, it probably won't change anything there"? Just like 5G could potentially reduce the overall consumption, before we realize that actually we use it to the point where it increases them. Or just like any other technology, after all.
  - modeless 4y ago
    Starlink directly competes with wired internet. It also competes directly with cell towers in the fixed wireless business and in mobile service for vehicles. Next year Starlink will be competing for mobile service direct to handsets too. Sure, people will use more bandwidth when they get Starlink, because Starlink provides more bandwidth. But that won't increase demand for Starlink's competitors, all it means is people get better service. I find the idea that Starlink doesn't reduce demand for its direct competitors extremely implausible.
londons_explore 4y ago
It's more that the launches can only be cheap if they are launched regularly. If you aren't launching every week, then the costs of those staff start to dominate, and the staff aren't paid less if you launch fewer rockets.

I read an opinion piece somewhere that Starlink is just busy work to keep SpaceX launching rockets, but because gestures at Google I can’t find it. This Twitter thread nakes this theory plausible.

WHATDOESIT 4y ago

Wasn't that exactly the plan publicized by Musk?

wmf 4y ago

It doesn't make sense to lose money on every rocket launch but make it up in volume. It's more accurate to say that reusable rockets and a LEO satellite constellation can form a mutually-reinforcing flywheel that will lower costs for the eventual Martian fleet.

aardvarkr 4y ago

Why can’t it be both? It absorbs excess capacity, allowing spacex to expand their capacity and achieve economies of scale that are unmatched in the modern world of rocketry while also setting up an exciting new revenue stream that will move them away from relying on government contracts. It also helps them win support from republicans as it serves rural communities and is an example of business innovation that the GOP can support which should help them win more govt contracts. Lots of win-win-win opportunities here

modeless 4y ago

Starlink is absolutely a way to keep SpaceX launching rockets, but that doesn't make it busywork. It's revolutionary and immensely valuable. And, any theorized environmental impact has to be compared to the existing natural process of space dust falling into the atmosphere, and measured against the saved costs worldwide of wires and cell towers and travel not needed, especially as capacity increases in the future. Which is practically impossible to measure, but failing to account for difficult-to-measure costs is a classic error people make when evaluating things like this. And of course there's the extra benefits of coverage over oceans and poles and to ships and planes that you can't get any other way.

palata 4y ago
What about: "measured against the potential saved [...], before realizing that in the end, it probably won't change anything there"? Just like 5G could potentially reduce the overall consumption, before we realize that actually we use it to the point where it increases them. Or just like any other technology, after all.
- modeless 4y ago
  Starlink directly competes with wired internet. It also competes directly with cell towers in the fixed wireless business and in mobile service for vehicles. Next year Starlink will be competing for mobile service direct to handsets too. Sure, people will use more bandwidth when they get Starlink, because Starlink provides more bandwidth. But that won't increase demand for Starlink's competitors, all it means is people get better service. I find the idea that Starlink doesn't reduce demand for its direct competitors extremely implausible.

londons_explore 4y ago

It's more that the launches can only be cheap if they are launched regularly. If you aren't launching every week, then the costs of those staff start to dominate, and the staff aren't paid less if you launch fewer rockets.