4 ms·

The explicit 1 TB/month data cap is fairly generous for a satellite-based service. Speeds are more important/concerning. I'd also claim that anyone who didn't

by tpmx 4y ago

The explicit 1 TB/month data cap is fairly generous for a satellite-based service. Speeds are more important/concerning. I'd also claim that anyone who didn't see explicit data caps/throttling coming for a satellite-based ISP service needs a reality check. Ever since Starlink launched I saw a lot of arguments being thrown around about how SpaceX would just launch more satellites using 'their fantastically affortable' Falcon 9 launches as the customer base grew so that it wouldn't be a problem (e.g. in HN threads and particularly in r/spacex and r/starlink).

MichaelCollins 4y ago
Falcon 9 isn't big enough to give Starlink the full constellation they've requested permission for. They first receieved permission for 12,000, and later requested an additional 30,000, or 42,000 total. Right now they have... less than 4,000, less than a tenth of what they want. So it will just take a few more years of Falcon 9 launches, right? Well, probably not. Because these satellites have a limited lifespan, they need to be constantly launching new satellites to replace older satellites. I don't think they can launch and keep anywhere close to 42,000 satellites operational with Falcon 9. They only get a bit more than 50 satellites per Falcon 9 launch. Even though Falcon 9 is cheap, to launch the full constellation would require several times more Falcon 9 launches than all the launches for every customer in the past combined. Long-term, Starlink is doomed to failure if SpaceX doesn't get Starship operational. FWIW, I also believe talk of Mars colonization is a recruiting scheme, and the true raison d'etre of Starship is to launch Starlink and similar large constellations. Solving this problem is what Starship is for, and without it they're toast.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  SpaceX is on track to do 60 launches this year, and next year they'll probably hit 100 based on how much is already scheduled. A full constellation would require about 180 launches per year. Being stuck with Falcon 9 doesn't sound like doom to me.
ftth_finland 4y ago
The issue isn’t whether 1 TB is a reasonable data cap or not, but that Starlink did a bait and switch.

by tpmx 4y ago

MichaelCollins 4y ago

Falcon 9 isn't big enough to give Starlink the full constellation they've requested permission for. They first receieved permission for 12,000, and later requested an additional 30,000, or 42,000 total. Right now they have... less than 4,000, less than a tenth of what they want. So it will just take a few more years of Falcon 9 launches, right? Well, probably not. Because these satellites have a limited lifespan, they need to be constantly launching new satellites to replace older satellites. I don't think they can launch and keep anywhere close to 42,000 satellites operational with Falcon 9. They only get a bit more than 50 satellites per Falcon 9 launch. Even though Falcon 9 is cheap, to launch the full constellation would require several times more Falcon 9 launches than all the launches for every customer in the past combined. Long-term, Starlink is doomed to failure if SpaceX doesn't get Starship operational. FWIW, I also believe talk of Mars colonization is a recruiting scheme, and the true raison d'etre of Starship is to launch Starlink and similar large constellations. Solving this problem is what Starship is for, and without it they're toast.

Dylan16807 4y ago
SpaceX is on track to do 60 launches this year, and next year they'll probably hit 100 based on how much is already scheduled. A full constellation would require about 180 launches per year. Being stuck with Falcon 9 doesn't sound like doom to me.

ftth_finland 4y ago

The issue isn’t whether 1 TB is a reasonable data cap or not, but that Starlink did a bait and switch.