So I don’t really like the idea of defending anything related to Musk, but it’s kind of poor form to compare emissions between Starlink and land-based internet imo. Although they are the same product, they are targeted at completely different users, from what I understand.
Starlink should always be a more expensive and slower technology just because of communication distance, so it shouldnt really be able to compete with land-based solutions (except where telecom is reeeeeally fucking people on price). Starlink is really meant more for edge-cases where telecorps refuse to build infrastructure.
Use cases and costs aside, we should still be open to discussing the pros and cons of these business ventures on the planet. Musk isn’t going to pay up to clean up any mess caused by this, it would be taxes and price hikes around the world in the name of going green and reducing climate impact that get paid by plebs like us.
Not only this, but StarLink is a new and rapidly growing service so the number of subscribers is still on a steep upward trend. Comparing carbon/subscriber is going to be inaccurate right now due to the low number of starlink subscribers compared to a more established utility with a stable number of users. StarLink also has more new infrastructure needed than an established utility.
Starlink isn’t meant for the edge cases, the edge cases can not make it profitable. The edge cases are edge cases.
Also blotting out the sky with wasteful satalites isn’t a good solution to “the free market wont build infrastructure because its broken.” Its just another aspect of it being broken and the entire planet has to suffer from it.
I am not super well-researched on this, so I might be mistaken, but their market is people who don’t have access to telecom infrastructure, no? I guess it’s not an edge-case just because there are that many people without access? Because I don’t see how they’d be able to compete on price/value with traditional internet providers.
That is not a viable market. It’s far too small for the cost.
And they can’t compete. It’s all backed by investor money. It’s the same disruption business that big tech has been doing for decades. Enter market, subsidize costs with investor money, become incumbent as everyone thinks it’s such a good deal. Raise prices when there’s no other option.
Uber, netflix, Spotify, same plan again. Never better, never competitive, just disruptive.
“blotting out the sky” is hyperbole and not reality. Those pics of the trains of dots in the sky are temporary and only present in the handful of days after a launch.
unfortunately Scientists have no power, so they are basically begging these companies to work with them to find solutions and the companies just aren’t doing that. The best they can do is twice the maximum brightness scientists have called for, www.nature.com/articles/s41550-020-01238-3 estimates there could be 100,000 of these objects in the sky in the 2030s, 30x the amount we have currently.
astronomy is massively impacted by all of this, just because America refuses to build infrastructure like everyone else does, thanks America. Thanks Musk.
Starlink should always be a more expensive and slower technology just because of communication distance
That is not correct. The target of Starlink is satellite-to-satellite data routing in as close to a straight line as possible between point A and point B. Even adding the 500Km up and 500Km down, starting at several 1000Kms that’s less distance than going through the network of ground fiber cables.
The speed of light in optic fiber cables is also only 2/3 the speed of light in vacuum (aka: space).
Starlink’s end form is meant to get billions from charging intercontinental high frequency traders for a split second advantage.
You know, I would think a progressive community would want to expand internet access to all (which is what Starlink does), so I’m kinda surprised there’s resistance every time it’s brought up.
You would think a progressive community would look at ALL the factors of such an endeavor and analyze them in a real world setting taking into account all the various variables.
Instead of focusing on ONE positive and acting as if all the negatives are automatically outweighed by that one positive.
First, you really need to look at the definition of progressive, because its for sure not: “being in favour of bringing tech to more people people even if it has disastrous consequences for everyone else”. Second, there are other people doing way better job at expanding internet access to everyone, for example in spain: conectate35.es where they have internet for 35 euros a month, in any part of the territory with 100mbps download speed without needing to clog the space with new satellites for Elon’s personal reasons, without needing to be constantly building new rockets, without making the pockets of Elon even larger. That is something that is actually bringing internet to actual people that needs it at a reasonable price, with the state paying for the equipment and installation in most cases. Obviously could be even better, but its actually helping real people.
Are you even serious? Maybe try looking at a map of spain, there are plenty of rural areas that are loosing population and leaving old towns completely deserted because they lack internet connection and are hours away from any relevant city and shops, you can read about the empty Spain theguardian.com/…/empty-spain-government-urged-to… with a simple search instead of trying to talk about stuff you dont even know, also btw, conectate 35 is the same concept as starlink, which is satellite driven internet for rural areas, but its way cheaper, sustainable and isnt managed by a piece of shit. …guim.co.uk/…/Spanish-population-change-inArticle…
for example in spain: conectate35.es where they have internet for 35 euros a month, in any part of the territory with 100mbps download speed
.
map of spain, there are plenty of rural areas that are loosing population and leaving old towns completely deserted because they lack internet connection
Pick one or the other, you’re literally arguing both sides of the fence here.
Is it really hard to read and understand that the government is launching this kind of operations with small internet providers and hispasat so people stop having to leave the rural side of spain from lacking access to internet?
Elon Musk is a total fool and an idiot, but like others said, this article is hogwash. The satellites do not pose a risk for Kessler Syndrome due to their LEO. They will fall to earth and burn up. They also maneuver to avoid collisions. It is highly unlikely to contribute anything at all to Kessler Syndrome.
Additionally, how are they comparing carbon footprint? Article is behind paywall. The internet infrastructure on earth didn’t pop into existence out of thin air, carbon neutral. The trucks and ships used to lay wire, the mining and manufacturing of everything involved in the process, creates carbon for both. The carbon that would be created to provide access to rural areas as an alternative. If you are going to count the carbon to make and fuel spaceships, you must also count the carbon to make the ships that lay and maintain undersea cables and trucks that maintain cable on land. The SpaceX ships are largely reusable as well, so the carbon to make the ships also needs to be split among its voyages to space just as a ship at sea makes multiple trips.
Even if they’re in low earth orbit an impact could spread pieces into higher orbit due to the energies involved. That could in turn impact other satellites at a higher orbit and just keep going.
Quantum mechanics also says that all the air in my lungs could collapse to a single point, but on the grand scale, these things don’t happen. Risk analysis requires evaluation of probabilities.
It is very improbable that there will be a collision caused by a starlink satellite. While Musk is certainly an idiot who can’t be trusted, there are intelligent people who work for SpaceX who have considered all this and more before launching their satellites.
It looks like the study they linked only addresses the CO2 produced by the satellites, and not the land based providers.
Another interesting thing is that OneWeb and Kuiper (competing satellite internet services) are estimated to have significantly more per-user emissions than Starlink (40-200% more emissions!) (keep in mind that Starlink is predicted to have the most users) while also being estimated to provide a worse service and be more expensive per user. (all taken from the charts on page 6)
They also mention that Starship will likely lower carbon emissions of later Starlink launches significantly.
I’m not quite sure how the much larger Starlink V2 design factors in to all of this, or if they even took it into account.
I’m actually surprised internet takes 3% the amount of energy it takes to get to space just to run some internet wires. I’d have thought it would be much much lower than that.
But also, starlink completes with geostationary satellite and home cellular connection more than internet over wires. Or even people who didn’t have an option before.
Did your intuition consider the energy required to dig a trench to bury the cale in? Or putting up posts to lift the cable off the ground? I didn’t consider it at first, but neither is done with climate neutral machinery.
The operational requirements are probably pretty similar, the satellites are obviously exclusively solar powered, so no contribution there.
Yeah I did, but cities where most of the internet users are have very short runs, and the cabling is usually installed with the building. Also, I think I’ve usually seen internet run with the telephone wires in rural areas rather than in trenches.
From a business point of view why should I spend $1,000 per quarter mile to install a fibre cable that will make maybe $120/month in revenue so my profit per service is maybe $30-$40/m
This is a vastly oversimplified as there are multiplexing technologies like GPON to lower the cost per mile but then there are support costs for faults, backhaul and internet exchange point costs I have to pay.
Because when a company is not making enough money it is not the fault of sales not meeting expectations, it is the fault of government regulations and administration costs.
We did it with electricity and telephone service about 100-200 years ago depending on where you look. We can do it again with a technology that literally can share cables with telephone and electricity
In some EU countries, Australia, new Zealand, and the UK those initial networks were rolled out as government departments so the government did not expect an initial return.
Fun thing, the Australian and UK telephone networks were rolled out under the direction of the postal services before being split off to their own departments.
Since the 80s most western governments are trying to sell off assets under the guise of Privation so we are very unlikely to see another initiative like it. There have been exceptions like the Australian National Broadband Network but those are planned to be broken up and sold again anyway.
My Internet here is like 1-3 Mbps if I’m lucky because I have 2 shitty options. Launch some more of these fuckers up there so I can have useful Internet.
Capitalists are the reason for that. Government involvement is just that the rules weren’t written well enough (although sometimes on purpose because they’re being paid, but still it’s the fault of capitalists, not the government).
No … the government is responsible for us. Lt having a useful public service. Capitalism is trash but at least we have space internet which is more than we were ever going to get from rich old fucks making laws. But then we get full on exceptional individuals that get angry because they think it’s gonna stop them from moving to Mars… in the words of Danny Boone " ain’t no motherfuckers gonna live on Mars".
Edit: all the downvoting Mossad bacon grease-covered nut-licking fucks also post your plane tickets. Your fascist regime is not in the right. Hitler is kicking himself in the grave wishing he would have taken Netanyahu’s strategy book
Fact is, satellite internet from low earth orbit is the best solution in some parts of the world, and the ones to blame are literally the exact ISPs it’s competing with by providing service to the underserved. It’s a necessary option in providing the constant connectivity out society expects and relies upon (whether or not intermittent outages should be acceptable is a different discussion)
I would love to see some legislation requiring satellite ISPs to share infrastructure so we don’t have 3 incompatible competing services with duplicated but not necessarily redundant infrastructure. That would be a far more useful goal to push for
I dont know enough about eastern geopolitics to have an opinion. But what I do know is that moving a carrier strike group is a pretty clear way to say “Sir, I object.”
files.catbox.moe
Oldest