Comment

Comment on We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink

The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we’re talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth’s atmosphere, not being recycled.

Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.

source

Sort:hotnew top

bulwark@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I didn’t realize how temporary and disposable Starlink’s satellites were. They incinerate 4 or 5 a day by de-orbiting them into the ozone. Here’s a pretty good CNET article that talks about how they “dispose” of them. IDK, doesn’t seem sustainable. They also mention the bandwidth gains are being diminished with the influx of new users, so their solution is more temporary satellites.

source
- Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Yeah, if they want to make satellites last longer, they could go a bit higher in their orbits. The option is there.
  
  source
  - skulblaka@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    But they specifically don’t want to do that because ensuring a 5 year service life means you are required to continue buying more satellites from them every 5 years. Literally burning resources into nothingness just to pursue a predatory subscription model.
    
    It also helps their case that LEO has much lower latency than mid or high orbit but I refuse to believe that that is their primary driving concern behind this and not the former.
    
    source
    Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Who’s buying satellites?
    
    SpaceX is putting up satellites for SpaceX, they’re the manufacturer and user…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    JcbAzPx@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    LEO does offer legitimate advantages not just to latency but also for minimizing the abandoned space junk left in orbit. The satellites will deorbit fairly quickly after running out of fuel.
    
    Though I’m sure you’re correct about the main reason for the choice.
    
    source
  - Venator@lemmy.nz ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    That would also make latency worse and the signal weaker.
    
    source
    Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Well you wouldn’t want to put them much higher, but if you raised their orbit by say 40%, they’d be getting significantly less atmospheric drag. It could probably extend their life by 15 years. And yeah, they’re be 40% further away, so slightly more latency. Perhaps going from 70 ms ping to 100 ms ping. Not awesome, but definitely not a huge problem.
    
    source
Thorry84@feddit.nl ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
You are right in how wasteful it is, especially since it turned out a lot of those satellites don’t even make it to 4 years.

However there is zero risk of space trash with Starlink. They orbit so low, it’s basically within the atmosphere still. They need to constantly boost themselves, otherwise they fall down and burn up. So these satellites are coming down within years all on their own, even without any controlled disposal.

It’s insanely wasteful, but it keeps SpaceX in business launching every week, which is kind of the point. But at least there isn’t a Kessler syndrome waiting to happen.

source
- trailee@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Even though it’s not a space trash problem, it is a regular upper atmosphere polluter of aluminum oxide ash. We don’t yet know the long term consequences.
  
  source
  - anomnom@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    It’s not enough, but I would bet it might have a cooling effect as it reflects more light in the upper atmosphere.
    
    But we should really still make sure, and more importantly not trust Elon with any data flowing over those satellites.
    
    source
    trailee@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    It might! But the article I linked also suggests it might destroy ozone and have a net warming effect. We just don’t know. The upper atmosphere has never before had this level of direct pollution injection.
    
    source
halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Starlink provides service to areas where fiber is impossible. Like the middle of the ocean and actual rural areas where fiber runs could be tens of miles or more between homes. Those are area where no one will build out fiber unless the homeowner is paying for it themselves, the various government programs would never cover those actual rural areas despite what they claim. At best they might cover city outskirts for new infrastructure, where fiber nodes are already relatively close by. They’re never adding fiber to existing rural farms and ranches.

They are not a 1:1 service comparison. You would need to compare It to other satellite providers, and there isn’t a comparison because all of those are dogshit in comparison to Starlink.

There’s a reason it’s as popular as it is so quickly despite satellite internet in general not being new. The low earth satellite constellation means a massive difference in capability compared to conventional geostationary satellites. Multiple second latency, slow downloads nowhere near advertised double digit Mbps speeds, single digit Mbps upload speeds and often monthly data limits as low as 50GB per month are what the conventional satellite providers offer.

source
- burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  i dont feel the cost and waste of all the rocket launches and debris justifies remote areas having satellite Internet
  
  source
  - BagOfHeavyStones@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I think if you consider the cost to manufacture then bury a fibre optic cable for everyone who lives 10km from a town centre, I think it's still a net positive. It's not great for sure, but amortised over a huge population it's probably the best option we have at this time.
    
    source
    anomnom@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Only short term, long term the repeated rocket launches can’t win out offer a ditch digger.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - CybranM@feddit.nu ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I doubt the Ukrainians would agree with you
    
    source
    Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    This is a really weird “ends always justify the means” because I could also say it wouldn’t be necessary if Ukraine never gave up their nuclear weapons and how I doubt the Ukrainians would disagree. This is also further impacted by the protection of Starlink by the US military because if it wasn’t an act of war against the US to destroy them, Russia could take down low earth orbit satellites pretty easily.
    
    But none of this is relevant to how Starlink is not an ISP, it is not infrastructure it is a fleeting wasteful service.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Those places can get internet from satellites outside of low earth orbit that is simply slower with higher latency.
  
  source
kautau@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
If only we could adjust the plot of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes to where it’s mostly just cleaning up dead starlink satellites.

In any case, highly recommended as a fantastic anime. And for those that haven’t seen it:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZESIHA0qK3U

That’s a dubbed trailer, but those of you looking for a Japanese language trailer know where to find it or probably have already watched it lol

source
- IanTwenty@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I’m checking this out!
  
  source
Cocodapuf@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
I’m not sure what isn’t viable about it, I mean it’s demonstrably viable, it’s working now.

source