Comment on SpaceX says states should dump fiber plans, give all grant money to Starlink
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 days agoTrue, but your’re comparing a single fiber optic line to an entire network of satellites. Blow up one, and they simply route traffic around it. Blow up 10, and you might have a small moving deadzone that removes service for a few minutes.
If you want to compare accurately, look at the time it takes to replace the cable infrastructure for an entire nation vs the time it takes to relaunch all the star link satellites. We started using satellites in the first place because it was the fastest (and in many cases, cheapest) way to get TV coverage anywhere on the planet.
ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 days ago
You understand EMPs wouldn’t affect one sat, right? Or a capture net can hit an entire train?
That can, and has been done in a couple of weeks. It happens somewhat regularly.
leadventgrp.com/…/submarine-cable-damage-and-repa…
10-20 days to launch a repair crew, and another week to affect the repair. At a few hundred million in costs.
A single rocket launch it minimally a year of planning. And BILLIONS in costs.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 days ago
leadventgrp.com/…/submarine-cable-damage-and-repa…
Whoops, there you go again comparing the impact and resolution of a single cable to an entire national network.
ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 days ago
That’s… um… how it works? It’s generally one, maybe two, cables connecting continents: dabrownstein.com/…/charting-interconnectedness-in…
I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.
So, generally, “nations” are not connected via undersea cables, continents are.
So, yes, repairing one, maybe two, would be reconnecting an entire national network. Which is STILL cheaper than replacing a mass of Starlink sats… Which, btw, need replacing routinely anyways, because their orbits decay purposefully.
So, every 5 years, we need spend tens of billions to launch another set of trains, just to have them fall into the ocean after 5 years of service. Just to obtain a service that is cheaper, and doesn’t require nearly as much regular investment.
www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems. And, you also don’t understand that without connected ground stations, served by those “at risk fiber networks on the ground” (That you purport as very risky), Starlink doesn’t work, either.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
You are comparing a backbone to last mile? Starlink relies on that fiber backbone too. Cutting all the last mile fiber in America would be an insanely difficult attack. Satellites are comparatively vulnerable to a great many attacks. They literally fly over the enemy.
Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I think you didn’t quite understand. I’m not taking about just undersea cables. An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.
I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.
Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.