5 ms·

Hard enough that some people are putting up satellites instead. EDIT: Say there's some way to put in fiber at $10k per km. Even then, ten million users at 1km

Hard enough that some people are putting up satellites instead. EDIT: Say there's some way to put in fiber at $10k per km. Even then, ten million users at 1km per user makes $100 billion.

bmitc 2y ago
To me, these are capitalistic solutions looking for problems. It's the whole startup mentality. Let's just throw a bunch of shit in space and see if it ends up being useful for anything. This idea of connecting the world is as false as the other hundred millions times that's been sold.
- oh_my_goodness 2y ago
  Yeah, fair. Just because stuff is expensive doesn't mean it's worth anything.
- FredPret 2y ago
  If you paid attention, "this time" and also the "other hundred million times" are true, not false. We're massively more connected than ever before. Homeless people in the third world have phones now. They should be able to get on the internet too.
  - palata 2y ago
    Starlink is not there to bring Internet in places that don't have it. It's here to bring fast Internet in places that already have slow Internet. The question is: how fast an Internet connection do we need? Do we really need to swipe 4k videos on social network, or to download 50G of docker containers for every build? I don't think so.
    - FredPret 2y ago
      Is there some maximum level of development you want? And what is that level, and why? Where do you want to draw the line? The wheel, fire, hand tools, struggling to survive in the middle ages, slow internet, fast internet? I say there is no line.
      - palata 2y ago
        > I say there is no line. I say there is one: survival. Not only of our species, but of the others, too. We're failing at that, and the vast majority of the technology that got developed in the last decades is making things worse.
        FredPret 2y ago
        OK, but I don’t think tech progress = dead ecosystem. In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. We use less land than we would’ve using 1800’s farming techniques, for instance. Nuclear is cleaner than coal. Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech.
        palata 2y ago
        I feel like I almost agree with everything you say, except that I systematically conclude the exact opposite. You seem to keep stopping half-way through every single point you mention: > In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. Newer tech is cleaner if you ignore rebound effect. It's absolutely certain that in history, new tech has always resulted in more energy use, which is the exact opposite of "cleaner". > Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Everybody having more money means that they can consume more. Do you know who goes on holiday by plane? Those who have more money. It's absolutely clear that those who have more money pollute more, even if they feel good because they drive a Tesla (which is all but environmentally-friendly). > Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. Okay, it is "better" by many metrics. But certainly not by the environmental one. We are talking about the environmental impact here, right? Starlink is technically impressive, but it doesn't mean we should do it. It's just part of the problem, and we don't need it. > In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Surely? It's all but sure. You don't even say precisely what you are talking about: do you account for the cables that are already out there and work perfectly fine? Or do you just consider the cost of bringing fiber to your tent in the middle of the desert? Maybe Starlink is better for that, but we don't need it. In fact we just can't afford it, at this point. > Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech. This is preposterous. With our current understanding of physics, more tech will certainly not help. We would need a breakthrough that is akin to wishing for a miracle. You may as well wait for Jesus to come back. But there is more: our society depends on fossil fuels. But not only there is no serious way to replace them entirely (meaning that we cannot save the climate/biodiversity without fundamentally changing society), but they are limited and will become a problem in the next few decades (meaning that society will fundamentally change, whether we want it or not). You can wait for a miracle, or face the truth: we need to prepare for a world with (much) less energy. And in that world, there is no place for fiber in your tent in the desert.
  - bmitc 2y ago
    > We're massively more connected than ever before. In a certain electronic sense, yes, but emotionally and socially, we are not more connected than ever before. So like I said, this utopian promise of the Internet connecting and liberating and educating us has not happened. In fact, it's the opposite that has happened.
    - oh_my_goodness 2y ago
      Yeah, this. And people ignoring this point or actively downvoting it ... that's not just puzzling it's symptomatic. The capitalism I'm fine with, though we need the New Deal version to come back. But universal isolation and depression, or feeling like we live in a factory farm, no.
- ggreer 2y ago
  Useful for anything? Starlink useful to its 2.7 million subscribers. And it's already profitable. As of last year, SpaceX makes more in subscription fees than it costs to build and launch the satellites. The economics will only become more favorable when SpaceX improves their launch capabilities with Starship.
  - palata 2y ago
    > The economics will only become more favorable when SpaceX improves their launch capabilities with Starship. Until we start making them pay for the environmental impact, that is.
    - ggreer 2y ago
      What environmental impact? So far there have been 162 Starlink launches. Each launch uses around 200 tons of RP-1, which is equivalent to the fuel capacity of a Boeing 747. In other words: A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years.
      - bmitc 2y ago
        Rocket launches are far more environmentally non-friendly than planes. You can't just look at fuel capacity. It's the composition and where the waste product gets dumped. Rockets dump their waste much higher up in parts of the atmosphere much more sensitive to it. Comparing a rocket and plane isn't an effective comparison in terms of environment impact. So this: > A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years. is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. Also, rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites.
        jryle70 2y ago
        > is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. So what is the accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches? 10 times more than B747? 100 times? How would it look compared to aviation? > rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites. Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC - [0] [0] - https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/...

Hard enough that some people are putting up satellites instead. EDIT: Say there's some way to put in fiber at $10k per km. Even then, ten million users at 1km per user makes $100 billion.

bmitc 2y ago

To me, these are capitalistic solutions looking for problems. It's the whole startup mentality. Let's just throw a bunch of shit in space and see if it ends up being useful for anything. This idea of connecting the world is as false as the other hundred millions times that's been sold.

oh_my_goodness 2y ago
Yeah, fair. Just because stuff is expensive doesn't mean it's worth anything.
FredPret 2y ago
If you paid attention, "this time" and also the "other hundred million times" are true, not false. We're massively more connected than ever before. Homeless people in the third world have phones now. They should be able to get on the internet too.
- palata 2y ago
  Starlink is not there to bring Internet in places that don't have it. It's here to bring fast Internet in places that already have slow Internet. The question is: how fast an Internet connection do we need? Do we really need to swipe 4k videos on social network, or to download 50G of docker containers for every build? I don't think so.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    Is there some maximum level of development you want? And what is that level, and why? Where do you want to draw the line? The wheel, fire, hand tools, struggling to survive in the middle ages, slow internet, fast internet? I say there is no line.
    - palata 2y ago
      > I say there is no line. I say there is one: survival. Not only of our species, but of the others, too. We're failing at that, and the vast majority of the technology that got developed in the last decades is making things worse.
      - FredPret 2y ago
        OK, but I don’t think tech progress = dead ecosystem. In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. We use less land than we would’ve using 1800’s farming techniques, for instance. Nuclear is cleaner than coal. Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech.
        palata 2y ago
        I feel like I almost agree with everything you say, except that I systematically conclude the exact opposite. You seem to keep stopping half-way through every single point you mention: > In fact, newer tech tends to be cleaner. Newer tech is cleaner if you ignore rebound effect. It's absolutely certain that in history, new tech has always resulted in more energy use, which is the exact opposite of "cleaner". > Also, everybody having more money is a huge help for the environment. Compare the size of the green movements between say, Sweden and the DRC. Everybody having more money means that they can consume more. Do you know who goes on holiday by plane? Those who have more money. It's absolutely clear that those who have more money pollute more, even if they feel good because they drive a Tesla (which is all but environmentally-friendly). > Yes, more money = more consumption, but it also means we can do innovative things in a better way. Okay, it is "better" by many metrics. But certainly not by the environmental one. We are talking about the environmental impact here, right? Starlink is technically impressive, but it doesn't mean we should do it. It's just part of the problem, and we don't need it. > In this particular case, surely extra-planetary infrastructure is better than millions of miles of ditches with lead cables in them. Surely? It's all but sure. You don't even say precisely what you are talking about: do you account for the cables that are already out there and work perfectly fine? Or do you just consider the cost of bringing fiber to your tent in the middle of the desert? Maybe Starlink is better for that, but we don't need it. In fact we just can't afford it, at this point. > Either way, our current state of development isn’t sustainable. It has to be millions of times smaller, or an unknown amount larger. I vote for more tech. This is preposterous. With our current understanding of physics, more tech will certainly not help. We would need a breakthrough that is akin to wishing for a miracle. You may as well wait for Jesus to come back. But there is more: our society depends on fossil fuels. But not only there is no serious way to replace them entirely (meaning that we cannot save the climate/biodiversity without fundamentally changing society), but they are limited and will become a problem in the next few decades (meaning that society will fundamentally change, whether we want it or not). You can wait for a miracle, or face the truth: we need to prepare for a world with (much) less energy. And in that world, there is no place for fiber in your tent in the desert.
- bmitc 2y ago
  > We're massively more connected than ever before. In a certain electronic sense, yes, but emotionally and socially, we are not more connected than ever before. So like I said, this utopian promise of the Internet connecting and liberating and educating us has not happened. In fact, it's the opposite that has happened.
  - oh_my_goodness 2y ago
    Yeah, this. And people ignoring this point or actively downvoting it ... that's not just puzzling it's symptomatic. The capitalism I'm fine with, though we need the New Deal version to come back. But universal isolation and depression, or feeling like we live in a factory farm, no.
ggreer 2y ago
Useful for anything? Starlink useful to its 2.7 million subscribers. And it's already profitable. As of last year, SpaceX makes more in subscription fees than it costs to build and launch the satellites. The economics will only become more favorable when SpaceX improves their launch capabilities with Starship.
- palata 2y ago
  > The economics will only become more favorable when SpaceX improves their launch capabilities with Starship. Until we start making them pay for the environmental impact, that is.
  - ggreer 2y ago
    What environmental impact? So far there have been 162 Starlink launches. Each launch uses around 200 tons of RP-1, which is equivalent to the fuel capacity of a Boeing 747. In other words: A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years.
    - bmitc 2y ago
      Rocket launches are far more environmentally non-friendly than planes. You can't just look at fuel capacity. It's the composition and where the waste product gets dumped. Rockets dump their waste much higher up in parts of the atmosphere much more sensitive to it. Comparing a rocket and plane isn't an effective comparison in terms of environment impact. So this: > A single 747 burns more fuel in a year than all the Starlink launches in the past five years. is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. Also, rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites.
      - jryle70 2y ago
        > is not an accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches. So what is the accurate summary of the environmental impact of rocket launches? 10 times more than B747? 100 times? How would it look compared to aviation? > rocket launches are incredibly disruptive to the local ecosystems of the launch sites. Not according to FAA when they issued license for SpaceX's launches at KSC - [0] [0] - https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/nepa_docs/SpaceX_Falcon_Program_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/space/environmental/...