I find it hard to believe that, like Tesla is for cars, Starlink will be
much more than a majority presence in a minority market. If you’re on land
there’s just better solutions between WISPs, whitespace internet, and
cellular data.
Starlink may wind up being the best satellite internet service there is,
but the satellite internet market is stagnant at best. Post-COVID
demographic shifts are probably going to bring new telecom investments to
suburban/rural areas anyway as people leave cities. It may genuinely be
about ten years too late as a concept.
Matt L.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 2:44 AM J Farmer <jfarmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/14/2021 2:08 AM, Uwe Klein wrote:
Am 14.07.21 um 06:47 schrieb Keith and Mary Stormo:
Matt,Systems like Starlink just add so much more space junk.
Spacex Starlink satellite system is planing about 20,000 satellites and
currently launch 60 per Falcon 9 at a wholesale cost of about $40
million each. 20,000 / 60 = 333 launches x $40 million = 13.3 Billion
dollars for launching them in the next 5-8 years. This is a money
making venture using the Falcon 9.
The Starship can carry about 500 of the satellites
( trajectory control changes the problem vector slightly..
potentially to the worse.)
I don't see much advantage in adding more junk faster.
Uwe
You see it as space junk because you're living in the middle of a
bandwidth dense area.
To my cousin who lives in the middle of the backside of nowhere? It's a
chance to have decent _voice_ communications as well as video and and
maybe real usable Internet.
To my friend who lives on a small sailboat cruising around the SE
Pacific? It's a chance to get weather and charts downloaded at some
rate greater that a few kilobits/sec on a satellite data phone link.
To someone in the middle of ...
Heck if you don't get the reasons, then listing more and more won't
change your mind.
Maybe Starlink isn't a perfect solution to high bandwidth global
communication, but it is one available _now_, and it will do until we
find a better one.
John
