6 ms·

Starlink is not as amazing as it's made out to be. There have been many LEO constellations before it, but due to the space industry as a whole being unattractiv

Starlink is not as amazing as it's made out to be. There have been many LEO constellations before it, but due to the space industry as a whole being unattractive to investors, it didn't get any attention until musk got into it. Starlink as a technology is nothing new; what is new is their launch cadence that gives them the ability to put so many satellites into space. They are still not making money and will require starship before that happens. You can look at other ventures like one web that just didn't get the press that starlink got despite having similar characteristics. Vertical integration with the launch is the only thing that starlink apart technology wise.

kierank 3y ago
SpaceX deliberately doesn't make money as they want to invest as much as possible into going to Mars.
- shaklee3 3y ago
  That's not how VC investments work
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    Lots of VCs will happily eat a loss for many years if it gives them a larger piece of the future pie. See Uber.
    - shaklee3 3y ago
      Nobody was arguing that point. I'm disputing the fact that Starlink, as a satellite internet service technology, is doing anything new. The launch cadence due to SpaceX's progress on rockets has nothing to do with the Starlink side.
      - yencabulator 3y ago
        Show me a non-Starlink satellite internet service widely available that can reach 200+ Mbps for a smallish fixed monthly cost.
        shaklee3 3y ago
        Ah, but anecdotes don't mean reality: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-median-us-download-speed-fell-nearly-30mbps-in-q2-2022/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-... Starlink's median download speeds in the US dropped from 90.6Mbps to 62.5Mbps between the first and second quarters of 2022, according to Ookla speed tests. Satellite broadband has been able to hit 200Mbps to a single terminal for over a decade, but it makes no business sense to do that. This is why Starlink speeds are slowly degrading to where legacy satellite companies are. So having an anecdote from 4 years ago where the first Starlink terminals hit those speeds has really no basis in reality today as the system fills up.
        yencabulator 3y ago
        Anecdote from 4 years ago? I ran that speedtest while writing the comment. You're blinded by your hate.
        shaklee3 3y ago
        I'm not sure how many times you want me to repeat the same comment, but anecdotes don't match reality. Ookla and the FAA consistently show Starlink speeds on the decline to about 1/3 of what you're seeing for most users. The fact that you're in a (temporarily) uncongested area doesn't mean your speeds will stay what they are.
        yencabulator 3y ago
        It's a little weird to me that you're telling me the thing I just experienced "doesn't match reality". You can say it doesn't match the typical experience or something, but surely what I just experienced is reality. What me being in a relatively uncongested area means is that I'm exactly the kind of customer Starlink was meant for...
- xedeon 3y ago
  Not true at all: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/17/spacex-reported-a-profit-in-the-first-quarter-wsj-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/17/spacex-reported-a-profit...
panick21_ 3y ago
So much nonsense. Starlink is nothing new lol. And sure launch is the only thing differnet about it, mmh sure. You shit on Starlink and then hype up OneWeb a system that is generations behind technologically, went bust and has far, far, far less capability. While also being worst for space pollution. Also SpaceX just made a profit, despite investment in future Starlink and Starship. Starlink is already cashflow positive and its still in its first generation.
- shaklee3 3y ago
  Then tell me, what is new about starlink? You just refuted it without naming one thing. They did not make a profit. That was a speculative article and nobody knows how they're accounting for starlink costs.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    First of all, quantity is a quality all on its own. This has to be repeated often, having one of something is far easier then having 1000s. So even if, nothing in Starlink was knew, nothing that is one Starlink was ever produced the way it is for Starlink. Starlinks vertical integration and mass production is totally knew in the sat industry. Now since you might not want to count that (despite mass production of sats being a huge challange), lets look at some other things. While Electric propulsion isn't knew, it wasn't exactly common specially for non science missions. Starlink v1 used Krypton, as far as I know Krypton wasn't used on operational sats. The Starlink v2 Argon thruster is pretty damn revolutionary in its performance and the first use of argon on operational. So if you want to name 'one' thing this would be it and it isn't really debatable. Starlinks laser communication is top of the line in terms of performance and having a whole constellation of laser link sats coordinating for best connection is certainty unique. And not as a research project, but actually operational on commercial sats. Starlink flat construction is also pretty unique, making so many sats stack-able is a significant advance if you compare it how the other largest constellations were deployed. There is additional innovation in the way they are deployed threw a rocket rotation and a spring mechanism, its unique and brilliant. The Starlink sats also use a sun shield to make the sats harder to see for earth observation, as far as I know this has not been done before. Starlink operations is also whole unique, on a personal per sat bases SpaceX is leading by far. SpaceX has a very small team for operations and made excellent use of automatic avoidance on a large scale, doing avoidance even for even unlikely collisions. We simple don't have all the information, we don't know everything there is to know about the antennas for example. They are likely quite a unique design as the ground terminals are, but we just don't know. I could go on to talk about ground systems as well, be lets leave it here. The simple reality is, Starlink as system is fundamentally revolutionary. Any claim that cheaper rockets is the only 'new thing' is basically putting a board before your head and screaming 'lalalalal'. Even being charitable and assume that all individual technologies were demonstrated as research before doesn't change how revolutionary the system as a whole is.
yencabulator 3y ago
> Starlink as a technology is nothing new Dishy is the first phased array antenna widely available to consumers, as far as I know. Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation. The scale is truly new. The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system.
- shaklee3 3y ago
  > Dishy is the first phased array antenna widely available to consumers, as far as I know. Dishy is the first phased array antenna that was willing to take a huge loss on each sale to consumers. This goes back to the point of getting VC and FCC money to subsidize the service. The estimated cost of the dish is still $1100-$2000 since SpaceX doesn't have any phased array technology that's proprietary, so at $500 they're taking a loss. > Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation Massive is a property of the launch cadence and not anything specific to the satellites. > The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system. What is different about the satellites compared to something like Iridium, O3b, Intelsat, etc?
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    Once again, the scale changes things. The fact that I can get a 210+ Mbps bandwidth[1] for a monthly cost comparable to the cheapest alternative ISP available to me (which forces 10 Mbps cap on me)? How much would it cost to blast that speed for 24 hours on Iridium? Trick question, Iridium is "176 Kbps to 704 Kbps"! [1]: Just ran a speed test for that number, it's actual not theoretical.
    - shaklee3 3y ago
      Once again, your anecdotes don't match reality, which is decreasing quickly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37250468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37250468 You can say 210Mbps all you want, but that's simply not even close to what most starlink users get.
  - inemesitaffia 3y ago

kierank 3y ago

SpaceX deliberately doesn't make money as they want to invest as much as possible into going to Mars.

shaklee3 3y ago
That's not how VC investments work
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Lots of VCs will happily eat a loss for many years if it gives them a larger piece of the future pie. See Uber.
  - shaklee3 3y ago
    Nobody was arguing that point. I'm disputing the fact that Starlink, as a satellite internet service technology, is doing anything new. The launch cadence due to SpaceX's progress on rockets has nothing to do with the Starlink side.
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      Show me a non-Starlink satellite internet service widely available that can reach 200+ Mbps for a smallish fixed monthly cost.
      - shaklee3 3y ago
        Ah, but anecdotes don't mean reality: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-median-us-download-speed-fell-nearly-30mbps-in-q2-2022/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-... Starlink's median download speeds in the US dropped from 90.6Mbps to 62.5Mbps between the first and second quarters of 2022, according to Ookla speed tests. Satellite broadband has been able to hit 200Mbps to a single terminal for over a decade, but it makes no business sense to do that. This is why Starlink speeds are slowly degrading to where legacy satellite companies are. So having an anecdote from 4 years ago where the first Starlink terminals hit those speeds has really no basis in reality today as the system fills up.
        yencabulator 3y ago
        Anecdote from 4 years ago? I ran that speedtest while writing the comment. You're blinded by your hate.
        shaklee3 3y ago
        I'm not sure how many times you want me to repeat the same comment, but anecdotes don't match reality. Ookla and the FAA consistently show Starlink speeds on the decline to about 1/3 of what you're seeing for most users. The fact that you're in a (temporarily) uncongested area doesn't mean your speeds will stay what they are.
        yencabulator 3y ago
        It's a little weird to me that you're telling me the thing I just experienced "doesn't match reality". You can say it doesn't match the typical experience or something, but surely what I just experienced is reality. What me being in a relatively uncongested area means is that I'm exactly the kind of customer Starlink was meant for...
xedeon 3y ago
Not true at all: https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/17/spacex-reported-a-profit-in-the-first-quarter-wsj-says.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/17/spacex-reported-a-profit...

panick21_ 3y ago

So much nonsense. Starlink is nothing new lol. And sure launch is the only thing differnet about it, mmh sure. You shit on Starlink and then hype up OneWeb a system that is generations behind technologically, went bust and has far, far, far less capability. While also being worst for space pollution. Also SpaceX just made a profit, despite investment in future Starlink and Starship. Starlink is already cashflow positive and its still in its first generation.

shaklee3 3y ago
Then tell me, what is new about starlink? You just refuted it without naming one thing. They did not make a profit. That was a speculative article and nobody knows how they're accounting for starlink costs.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  First of all, quantity is a quality all on its own. This has to be repeated often, having one of something is far easier then having 1000s. So even if, nothing in Starlink was knew, nothing that is one Starlink was ever produced the way it is for Starlink. Starlinks vertical integration and mass production is totally knew in the sat industry. Now since you might not want to count that (despite mass production of sats being a huge challange), lets look at some other things. While Electric propulsion isn't knew, it wasn't exactly common specially for non science missions. Starlink v1 used Krypton, as far as I know Krypton wasn't used on operational sats. The Starlink v2 Argon thruster is pretty damn revolutionary in its performance and the first use of argon on operational. So if you want to name 'one' thing this would be it and it isn't really debatable. Starlinks laser communication is top of the line in terms of performance and having a whole constellation of laser link sats coordinating for best connection is certainty unique. And not as a research project, but actually operational on commercial sats. Starlink flat construction is also pretty unique, making so many sats stack-able is a significant advance if you compare it how the other largest constellations were deployed. There is additional innovation in the way they are deployed threw a rocket rotation and a spring mechanism, its unique and brilliant. The Starlink sats also use a sun shield to make the sats harder to see for earth observation, as far as I know this has not been done before. Starlink operations is also whole unique, on a personal per sat bases SpaceX is leading by far. SpaceX has a very small team for operations and made excellent use of automatic avoidance on a large scale, doing avoidance even for even unlikely collisions. We simple don't have all the information, we don't know everything there is to know about the antennas for example. They are likely quite a unique design as the ground terminals are, but we just don't know. I could go on to talk about ground systems as well, be lets leave it here. The simple reality is, Starlink as system is fundamentally revolutionary. Any claim that cheaper rockets is the only 'new thing' is basically putting a board before your head and screaming 'lalalalal'. Even being charitable and assume that all individual technologies were demonstrated as research before doesn't change how revolutionary the system as a whole is.

yencabulator 3y ago

> Starlink as a technology is nothing new Dishy is the first phased array antenna widely available to consumers, as far as I know. Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation. The scale is truly new. The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system.

shaklee3 3y ago
> Dishy is the first phased array antenna widely available to consumers, as far as I know. Dishy is the first phased array antenna that was willing to take a huge loss on each sale to consumers. This goes back to the point of getting VC and FCC money to subsidize the service. The estimated cost of the dish is still $1100-$2000 since SpaceX doesn't have any phased array technology that's proprietary, so at $500 they're taking a loss. > Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation Massive is a property of the launch cadence and not anything specific to the satellites. > The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system. What is different about the satellites compared to something like Iridium, O3b, Intelsat, etc?
- yencabulator 3y ago
  Once again, the scale changes things. The fact that I can get a 210+ Mbps bandwidth[1] for a monthly cost comparable to the cheapest alternative ISP available to me (which forces 10 Mbps cap on me)? How much would it cost to blast that speed for 24 hours on Iridium? Trick question, Iridium is "176 Kbps to 704 Kbps"! [1]: Just ran a speed test for that number, it's actual not theoretical.
  - shaklee3 3y ago
    Once again, your anecdotes don't match reality, which is decreasing quickly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37250468 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37250468 You can say 210Mbps all you want, but that's simply not even close to what most starlink users get.
- inemesitaffia 3y ago