20 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

But you are talking about 150,000 subscribers out of 7.9 billion people on this planet, I wouldn't call that a success story in fact far from it

I think you need to read up a bit more about what Starlink's goal is and where they're at. Their goal isn't to provide internet to all 7.9 billion people on the planet, and expecting them too is missing the point. Due to data throughput limits on the satellites and space to ground transmissions, there can only be a limited number of users in a given geographic area. This means it is aimed at people who don't otherwise have good options for internet in rural areas, not the billions of people in urban centres. 150,000 clients is pretty good for what they have done so far.

On top of the overall goal, until recently it was also in beta while they worked out issues, and new clients are only being taken on as they build out capacity to ensure the network isn't swamped. As new satellites are built and launched, they can ramp up the number of clients. The worldwide shortage of processors and electronics has also hit them too, slowing it down further. Based on the demand and feedback that is out there, it has been a success for almost everyone that signed up and was accepted.

Edited February 13, 20224 yr by goates

3 hours ago, birdguy said:

What about all the other satellites, active and dead, plus all the space junk up there.

Noel

Space junk is a problem, and the Kesler Syndrome is a real threat. Still not even close to what a Dyson Swarm would involve though.

3 hours ago, goates said:

I think you need to read up a bit more about what Starlink's goal is and where they're at. Their goal isn't to provide internet to all 7.9 billion people on the planet, and expecting them too is missing the point.

I know that but it goes back to my original point, it will never have a big enough demand to warrant the infrastructure spent on it. Even Satellite TV's are now junk infrastructure, but Satellite Radio still has some demand, some things in orbit make money and lots don't, people that think this is going to be successful are Elon Cheerleaders I see this as even more useless then investing in DirecTV.

Like I said even if it is not successful it is an Elon Musk Muscle Flex, it strokes his ego and his followers too 

3 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

Even Satellite TV's are now junk infrastructure, but Satellite Radio still has some demand, some things in orbit make money and lots don't, people that think this is going to be successful are Elon Cheerleaders I see this as even more useless then investing in DirecTV.

Why doesn't this make sense exactly? This isn't quite the same as internet radio or satellite TV. For better or worse internet access is becoming a requirement for modern life, and there are plenty of people that currently don't have good options for access. The demand for this is climbing in rural areas of Canada and many other places. As for the expense, I bet launching a few satellites and producing the uplink hardware is going to be cheaper than building out high speed landlines to every rural and remote corner of the planet. However, you're suggesting all of those people will just revert to the current slow, unreliable and expensive options? What do you think is a better option for them?

This has nothing to do with being an Elon fan for a lot of people. I have family that could use better internet and no one else has come anywhere close to offering anything decent and likely won't for a very long time, if ever.

Edited to add:

There are over 500,000 orders so far, and are working towards 5 million users in the US alone.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/05/spacex-gets-500000-starlink-pre-orders-musk-says-it-can-meet-demand/

The Hoh Tribe in Washington State is one example of a community that didn't have any good options.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2020/10/remote-tribe-says-spacex-starlink-catapulted-them-into-21st-century/

Edited February 13, 20224 yr by goates

2 hours ago, goates said:

Why doesn't this make sense exactly?

Why do you want to keep on beating a dead horse???

I WILL SAY IT AGAIN - Elon Musk Muscle Flex, nothing more to say 🤣

57 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

Why do you want to keep on beating a dead horse???

 

Probably because you haven't put forward a valid counterargument.

 "WILL SAY IT AGAIN - Elon Musk Muscle Flex, nothing more to say 🤣"

The entire purpose of Starlink is to raise funds for SpaceX's Spaceship. So no, it's not about Elon flexing his muscles. 

6 hours ago, Matthew Kane said:

know that but it goes back to my original point, it will never have a big enough demand to warrant the infrastructure spent on it.

 

30 billion per year, so yes it will. Musk isn't a moron. He's the richest man on the planet, so I think he has some idea what he's doing.

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

Probably because you haven't put forward a valid counterargument.

He's provided the ultimate counterargument - "Despite not having studied or understood the subject, it has no validity for my specific use case and is therefore rubbish".

Matthew, have you looked at the numbers to decide how much money it will lose, and what price point/subscriber volume it requires to be profitable?

1 hour ago, Luke said:

He's provided the ultimate counterargument - "Despite not having studied or understood the subject, it has no validity for my specific use case and is therefore rubbish".

Matthew, have you looked at the numbers to decide how much money it will lose, and what price point/subscriber volume it requires to be profitable?

It wouldn't be the first time someone was wrong about a topic using this reasoning.

Elon flexing was launching his Tesla Roadster out past Mars' orbit, not bringing decent high speed internet to those that can't get it.

7 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Probably because you haven't put forward a valid counterargument.

I have already, 7.9 billion people have to look up at that space junk every night so that 150,000 current subscribers can watch YouTube or Facebook or listen to what Jo Rogan has to say????? That is the biggest joke in the history of infrastructure spending. 

Edited February 13, 20224 yr by Matthew Kane

36 minutes ago, Matthew Kane said:

I have already, 7.9 billion people have to look up at that space junk every night so that 150,000 current subscribers can watch YouTube or Facebook????? That is the biggest joke in the history of infrastructure spending. 

There will be a lot more than 150,000 users. Not sure why you are so hung up on that number. Starlink has been putting in a lot of work to minimize the visibility of the satellites, and unlike many older satellites, there are plans in place to de-orbit both the boosters and satellites when no longer needed. So for those that will greatly benefit from this, what is your recommended alternative? There's a lot more to the internet than just Facebook and Youtube.

Edited February 13, 20224 yr by goates

1 hour ago, Matthew Kane said:

I have already, 7.9 billion people have to look up at that space junk every night so that 150,000 current subscribers can watch YouTube or Facebook or listen to what Jo Rogan has to say????? That is the biggest joke in the history of infrastructure spending. 

 

Which is nothing to do with your claim that Skylink is just "Elon flexing his muscles". You have provided zero to back up this claim. 

In regard to your new claim, its all very well for you, sitting at home using the internet on a daily basis for all manner of things, from shopping, emailing various organisations you need to contact, sometimes urgently, contacting loved ones from afar, and yes entrainment too, paying bills all the myriad of other things the internet is used for... but at the same time denying that capability, that facility, that service, to a multitude of people around the globe who have no internet access, or substandard internet access. I suppose its just for your use is it, you as a member of the privileged? 

Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, the internet is becoming a vital service. 

Internet access is a necessity not a luxury – it should be a basic right

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/ptr/departments/philosophy/news/2020/reglitz-internet-access.aspx

 

I think you'll find you are using the internet for entrainment too, at this very moment. 

As for 7.9 billion people... they aren't looking up at Skylink satellites, 99% of us have never seen one and will never see one.

Edited February 13, 20224 yr by martin-w

On 2/14/2022 at 8:06 AM, martin-w said:

As for 7.9 billion people... they aren't looking up at Skylink satellites, 99% of us have never seen one and will never see one.

We have been seeing them in New Zealand for years now, and the service is not available here and the numbers of them up there keeps growing. We have no light pollution in NZ and no haze so our night sky is crystal clear, my kids point them out all the time

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/explained/127664744/string-of-lights-in-the-sky-the-latest-batch-of-starlink-satellites

That begs the question Matthew...if they are not providing you with service why are they there?  And will all those he plans to put up there interfere with astronomers?

Noel

2 hours ago, birdguy said:

That begs the question Matthew...if they are not providing you with service why are they there?  And will all those he plans to put up there interfere with astronomers?

Noel

The plan is to provide coverage to the entire world, not just where it it now. Part of it is that they need more satellites to expand coverage, and part is also down to regulatory applications and approvals in each country it is to be offered in.

As for the strings or trains of satellites people see, those are the ones recently launched that haven't reached their final orbits. Once in their final orbits, they are higher up and harder to see. Starlink has been working with astronomers to reduce the impact, doing things such as adding sun shades, satellites being painted black and adjusting the orientation to minimize the reflection of sunlight.