Elon Musk rejects claims his satellites are squeezing out rivals in space:
Elon Musk has hit back at criticism that his company's Starlink satellites are hogging too much room in space, and has instead argued there could be room for "tens of billions" of spacecraft in orbits close to Earth.
"Space is just extremely enormous, and satellites are very tiny," Musk said. "This is not some situation where we're effectively blocking others in any way. We've not blocked anyone from doing anything, nor do we expect to."
His comments, made in an interview with the Financial Times, came in response to a claim from Josef Aschbacher, head of the European Space Agency, that Musk was "making the rules" for the new commercial space economy. Speaking to the FT earlier this month, Aschbacher warned that Musk's rush to launch thousands of communications satellites would leave fewer radio frequencies and orbital slots available for everyone else.
[...] Rejecting suggestions he was "squeezing out" future satellite competitors, Musk compared the number of satellites in low Earth orbit to what he said were 2 billion cars and trucks on Earth. Each orbital "shell" around the Earth is larger than the planet's surface, he said, with an additional shell every 10 meters or so further out into space.
"That would imply room for tens of billions of satellites," he said. "A couple of thousand satellites is nothing. It's like, hey, here's a couple of thousand of cars on Earth — it's nothing."
Some experts challenged Musk's claim that satellites in low Earth orbit could safely match the density of cars and trucks on Earth.
Spacecraft traveling at 17,000 mph need far greater separation than cars to leave time to adjust their orbits if a collision seems likely, said Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. At that speed, a three-second gap would only leave room for about 1,000 satellites in each orbital shell, he calculated.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @05:03AM
OH YEAH BABY OH YEAH!
SQUEEZE IT OUT!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @05:11AM
8==m===D ~ ~ Grow For Me!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @06:27AM (15 children)
"Spacecraft traveling at 17,000 mph need far greater separation than cars" is a bit of a loaded statement. The far more important metric are their relative velocities as well as the rate of change of thse velocities which is far less sensational I'd imagine. If we want to phrase things their way, it seems absolutely unimaginable that we'd allow cars to travel at upwards of 80MPH a mere foot or two apart!...... except that horizontal separation has a negligible velocity component. Even then, that makes far more sense with cars that have unpredictable flight paths and can speed up/slow down considerably. Satellites on the other hand have very fixed orbits that are possible to calculate in advance and rarely maneuver in ways that change its relative velocity by large amounts (for normal station keeping). Also, Its not like we're talking about human reaction times - these are computers that are managing orbits. We should absolutely be able to reach higher satellite densities than a few thousand especially with each one capable of its own automated collision avoidance. Its not like some random satellite is going to drop their cellphone and swerve into the lane of other satellites, too quick for those to avoid. Give me a break.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Saturday January 01 2022, @07:18AM
If we were using 1960's or 1970's era tracking systems, it would be a nightmare. But we're not.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Saturday January 01 2022, @11:11AM (5 children)
Absoloute BS.
Of course relative velocities are more important than the absolute ones, but they are likely to be even higher (except amongst Musk's own satellites perhaps). You talk of satellites having fixed predictable orbits but then talk of them taking avoiding action. But there are plenty of satellites that have no means of taking avoiding action anyway, to say nothing of the abandoned junk and debris already up there, down to the size of nuts and bolts, most of which is unknown and which have struck other satellites already. Musk wants to increase the stuff up there by an order of magnitude, and his low orbut zone of satellites will create a hazardous barrier for future space launches.
Even satellites that do have positioning rocket motors to enable avoidance, while their computers might react quickly, the motors cannot make the move instantly because of Newton's Laws and having only limited thrust and fuel supply.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Saturday January 01 2022, @03:52PM
Basically all modern satellites have ion thrusters for station keeping and orbit adjustment. Starlink satellites are low enough that if they stop station keeping, they'll renter within a few years. They're not contributing to the problem of small orbital debris. China, on the other hand, recently blew up one of their higher satellites, massively adding to the problem.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 01 2022, @10:30PM (3 children)
You're missing something. There is almost no debris in low earth orbit. What little debris there might be, is there only very temporarily. Low earth orbit skims the atmosphere, and is decelerating with every molecule that it encounters. The debris you mention is all much higher than LEO, and consequently much higher than any Starlink satellite. Any item placed into LEO must have the means to accelerate and to avoid collisions, or it will soon burn up while deorbiting.
All that debris you mention, is in higher orbits already. The debris may pose a threat to some individual LEO sats, as it falls to earth. LEO sats pose absolutely no threat to anything in a higher orbit.
Also - relative velocities? Anything in LEO has very similar velocities. Anything moving too slow, falls into the atmosphere. Anything moving faster will be boosted into a higher orbit. There are pretty rigid constraints on velocity, just to remain in low earth orbit. Any "collisions" taking place in LEO are likely to be just bumps, not spectacular explosive crashes. When a bump does happen, you can expect all parties involved to die a fiery death as they fall to earth soon after. There will be no lasting debris fields in LEO.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Sunday January 02 2022, @10:54PM (1 child)
Satellites with a polar orbit will have a relative velocity of sqrt(2)*orbital_velocity with respect to satellites with an equitorial orbit. There is a continuum of available orbits for each altitude, and most of them have very smashy relative velocities.
I think the Starlink fleet is a hideous idea, and sooner or later there will be a cost measured in human lives.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday January 04 2022, @05:36PM
When was the last time a Passenger Airliner crashed into a house, killing people, or a stadium for that matter? How about a drone?
StarLink employs a large number of satellites, but they are being smart about it. I have zero worry about getting hit by a random satellite / piece of satellite falling to earth. Airplanes, Cars, and Lightning Strikes are much more worrisome.
In my narrow sliver of the world, I know someone who's house was hit by lightning. For that matter, I've had lightning strike within 100 feet of me. I have been involved in multiple car collisions and pretty much every person I know, likely has had at least some form of vehicle collision. I know people who have died in car collisions. People die every year, from car collisions. Should we ban Cars? People get run over by Trains and Buses. Should we ban Trains and Buses? People die from drinking too much water. What do we ban next, water or people? Or maybe we should restrict water purchases, so only criminals can buy 5 gallon jugs of water? Freedom isn't free. We don't need to police every tiny crevice of everyday life. That kind of thing leads to giving more power to other people over your life. While that may be helpful in some cases, such as putting a low speed limit around residential areas and schools. It's not so helpful in a lot of areas of your life or the lives of others. We also have decided that manufacturing, plastic, metal, paint, batteries, etc. are worth a bit of risk, if it can give us a bit of pleasure and/or housing for the masses. I certainly wouldn't love to live in an non-air-conditioned building in a good portion of States in the United States of America.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @11:34PM
While your comment is vastly more accurate than your average contribution you are being overly dismissive of LEO debris. Yes it will fall to Earth relatively quickly compared to higher orbits, but
So starlink accidents can result in a good amount of debris, and while such debris might not be a problem in 10-50 years it certainly can cause issues for all the other LEO satellites that might get hit in the days/weeks/months/years it takes for the debris to de-orbit.
"LEO sats pose absolutely no threat to anything in a higher orbit."
Incorrect. High energy collisions can easily toss some debris into higher orbits, although I will agree they are not likely to cause problem to higher orbits.
"Also - relative velocities? Anything in LEO has very similar velocities. Anything moving too slow, falls into the atmosphere."
So then you probably have no problem bumping into an oncoming car since you're both going very similar speeds? Unless you truly meant velocity, in which case I recommend you look up how many different orbits are in use, and what the relative velocities of some satellites are.
There will be no lasting debris fields in LEO.
True, but again, it can get knocked higher and if not it is still a danger to the many LEO satellites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday January 01 2022, @01:45PM (4 children)
10 meters is ludicrous. I'd guess he meant to say 10 kilometers, but even that is very tight.
The big picture is that satellites used to be almost entirely passive. They'd go in an orbit with wide margins for error and collision avoidance was an afterthought. That's changing and the space industry will have to evolve.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @06:39PM
I'm sure he means 10 meters as that would support his "billions" argument, but he is intentionally glossing over the error bars that are on all orbits, especially lower ones. Unless you are doing satellite laser ranging on these things, you can't predict their positions better than kilometers for any useful look aheads because their orbits change so much every day because of atmospheric drag and gravitational nonuniformities, etc. I suspect Jonathan McDowell knows a bit more about this than our resident "experts" commenting here. The automobile argument is intentionally misleading (or Musk simply isn't very smart about these orbital topics and should keep his mouth shut and let people who know what they're talking about talk). Even if you know the positions of two cubesats right now, say from onboard GPS, the positional error bars a day ahead are plus/minus 1 km.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:20AM (2 children)
The OneWeb/Starlink near-miss back in April was only 60 meters. That was far enough that SpaceX didn't consider it a problem. I wouldn't be that surprised if 10 meters is actually their in-constellation clearance requirement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:46PM (1 child)
That's the problem right there. The errors on the orbital trajectories are MUCH larger than that, so they are essentially assuming or claiming infinite precision and gambling nothing would happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:08PM
After-action analysis showed that OneWeb's evasion manoeuvre and complaint was entirely superfluous. SpaceX was correct that it was enough clearance.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Sunday January 02 2022, @03:57PM (1 child)
>The far more important metric are their relative velocities
True. However, unless two satellites share *exactly* the same orbit, their relative velocities are going to be a fair-sized chunk of their absolute velocities.
Consider - two satellites X and Y in circular orbits at the same altitude and *almost* the same direction - pretty much the best case for minimizing collision speed. The relative velocity as X passes through the orbital plane of Y (the moment of potential collision) will be the portion of X's velocity perpendicular to Y's orbital plane, which is (absolute velocity) * sin(angle between orbital planes)
If their orbital planes are separated by only a tiny amount, say just one degree, then their relative speed at the potential collision point will still be:
17,000mph * sin (1deg) = 297mph.
Plenty fast enough to total both satellites and create a nice cloud of impact debris filling nearby orbits
With a slightly-less-perfect alignment, say with orbital planes 10 degrees apart the speeds become high enough that a collision looks more like an explosion:
17,000mph * sin (10deg) = 2,952mph
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday January 03 2022, @05:17PM
To anyone that cares about accurate formulas, on second thought that formula gives a number that is too small (though almost right for small enough angles)
The real formula should be the vector sum of the out-of plane velocity I gave above, and the difference in in-plane speed (since X is no longer traveling at quite the same in-plane speed as Y, with a difference proportional to 1-cos(angle) ):
relative speed = speed * sqrt[sin(angle)^2 + (1-cos(angle))^2]
so for the examples above the real relative speeds
@1 degree = still 297mph
@10 degree = 2963mph
But where it really shows up is as you get closer to a 90deg "T-bone" collision, whose vector sum of speeds is considerably greater than either alone:
@ 90deg = 24,016mph (rather than only 17,00mph)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:43PM
Sort of, relative velocity is a major factor in terms of how long you have, but these are still objects that are moving at enormous speeds and with that comes significant expenditures of energy to make a course correction and with it the possibility that other satellites will now be in the new path. The amount of time that they've got to react is probably not as much as you'd expect based purely on relative velocity. Obviously, tracking systems have improved greatly since the first man-made objects were put into orbits, but it is a tad more complicated than you're making it out to be.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @06:51AM (11 children)
>Musk compared the number of satellites in low Earth orbit to what he said were 2 billion cars and trucks on Earth
Cute. Now try to say the same thing for the Electomagnetic Spectrum allocated to satellite comms.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by esperto123 on Saturday January 01 2022, @01:04PM (7 children)
All spacex satellites use the same frequency bands, if you use a GEO satellite that covers half the earth of a few thousands in LEO to cover the same area, you are using the same spectrum. spectrum use will get tighter when DIFFERENT companies get to to space and use different slices of the spectrum.
The head of ESA is just but hurt that spacex is running laps around them in launching systems and communication satellites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by crafoo on Saturday January 01 2022, @03:12PM (5 children)
The amount of hate Elon gets is understandable when you know human nature. Resentful, supremely self-involved (not necessarily a bad thing despite what our culture says). Yeah. His company is making the old guard of spaceflight look stupid and lazy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @06:45PM (4 children)
He also talks out of his ass all the time and intentionally misleads and/or outright lies. Some of the hate against him is human nature, and some of it is because he is a lying sack of shit when it comes to getting his way. He lies to the SEC. He lies to his shareholders. And he certainly lies to the public and his fanboys who eat it all up. It is exactly the same thing with the Trump/MAGA crowd where they will completely ignore almost anything that puts him in a bad light and ascribe all criticism to "haters" and all successes being "single handedly" done.
You also don't mention the other side of the coin, being the human nature for blind hero worship. That explains the amount of adoration he receives as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @10:38PM (3 children)
OK, let's agree that everyone's a lying sack of shit. Why is Musk any worse than all the other lying sacks of shit? You'll admit that Musk and a dozen other space exploration entities have sucked up a lot of government money, right? Now, which of them has delivered the most bang for the buck? Given that we have to choose among all the lying sacks of shit, I'd rather support the one that gives us some kind of return on our money.
That is Musk and SpaceX, hands down. You can't even make a case for any of the competitors.
How 'bout SLS? It might launch, maybe, this year, if everything goes right, after spending ten times what SpaceX has received from government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @10:58PM (2 children)
When you're out of ammo, "everyone else does it" to the rescue!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @12:01AM
The Republican Way (TM)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @12:04AM
No, when he's out of ammo, "look at the results" to the rescue.
By focusing on the first quote and ignoring the second, you're being part of the problem, not part of the solution.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @04:30PM
Just like with the frequencies used for mobile phone service.
Oh, the biggest baddest company buys up all the spectrum at the allocation auction. In one country.
Starlink is also already ignoring the Indian Government's RF management body, splattering over that country's legal users.
(Score: 2) by corey on Saturday January 01 2022, @11:35PM (2 children)
What you’re saying is nowhere similar to orbital mechanics.
By the way, Elon Musk has a PhD in Physics, so by definition he’s certainly not science illiterate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:44PM
So you've elevated him to a Ph.D. now? Is that an honorary one, perhaps? What was his dissertation topic or title? Interesting Dr. Musk doesn't mention his degree on his Twitter bio. I don't blurt to any and everyone about my physics Ph.D., but I find it useful to at least mention it on my CV.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:50PM
Of all the issues that people have with Musk, he does typically know what he's talking about when it comes to science, the hyperloop debacle aside. He does legitimately know a crapton about rocketry and the related engineering. His dishonesty and personality are separate issues. Most of the things he says that are complete bullshit have to do with logistics and actual application of the principles, which is relatively common for people that are viewed as visionaries. There's frequently a Woz for every Jobs in those sorts of roles. Successful visionaries without a brilliant engineer or similar are extremely rare.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:03AM
button. I really enjoy how it "catches" in the belly button hole now and then, i should really try adding lube.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:08AM
1. Beat off a white man
2. Beat off a red man
3. Beat off a yellow man
4. Suck more cock
5. Be a great "bottom"
Yeah nigga 4real4life
(Score: 2) by sonamchauhan on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:09AM (19 children)
10 meters? Is that the separation you want for LEO vehicles travelling at 25,000 kmph+?
At least on earth, when you crash, debris (eventually) move to the side of the road -- out of the way of traffic. In space, the unguided debris keep going; moving also into the 'adjacent shells' Elon is basing his hopes on.
With this scenario:
... Kessler syndrome -- a debris chain-reaction -- is a given. All is takes is a small slip-up (or 'satellite Autopilot' bug):
https://www.space.com/kessler-syndrome-space-debris [space.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:54AM (17 children)
Kessler syndrome is a vastly over-rated threat in LEO. Every collision removes some kinetic energy and drops the debris into a lower orbit. Even if you could put enough megatons of junk up there to have a collision cascade it would clear itself within months.
Stuff in LEO either is big enough to track or small enough to de-orbit quickly.
(Score: 5, Informative) by khallow on Saturday January 01 2022, @01:12PM (16 children)
Except when it doesn't. Debris orbits can be very elliptical veering into higher altitude orbits and the collision can impart some pieces with higher velocity than the original satellites. I use the word "can", but with a high energy collision, you'll get some relatively small amount of this happening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @07:46PM (9 children)
Of course. Sorry, I forgot about all those satellites made of flubber. Bouncing higher with every rebound.
No debris orbit can have a perigee higher than the collision point and perigee is what counts for how long stuff takes to de-orbit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 01 2022, @09:39PM (5 children)
Except, of course, when the apogee is higher than the perigee (/sarc), then the apogee matters too. A high apogee (which is also a very eccentric orbit) passes through perigee (and most atmospheric braking) less often than a near circular orbit does. In addition to longer time in orbit, such high apogee debris has an opportunity to run into stuff with a higher perigee, and provides the means for lower altitude debris shells to spread to higher altitudes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @02:39PM (2 children)
Take any LEO collision that results in a highly elliptical orbit and track the full path. If it's heading up from the collision half an orbit later it's going to burn up. There is no way that a collision can result in a net increase in kinetic energy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @07:53PM (1 child)
Unless, it has enough energy that the collision altitude is its perigee (closest point to Earth).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 03 2022, @09:57AM
You fail orbits. He said heading up from the collision. Track that back and pretend there was no collision. This is that fragment's new orbit. An orbit heading up from the collision point necessarily came from a lower point. The perigee of that orbit must be lower than the collision altitude, and the more eccentric the orbit the lower that new perigee will be.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Sunday January 02 2022, @04:09PM (1 child)
Nothing deorbits naturally unless it's perigee is within the atmosphere.
For a given height of perigee, the higher the apogee, the less time it spends as deep in the atmosphere, but the faster it travels while there. And the deceleration from air resistance increases with the square of speed.
So yeah, a higher apogee makes some difference, but not nearly as much as you would expect. Plus all that air resistance lowers the apogee rather than the perigee, at least until the orbit circularizes and then begins spiraling inward under the influence of constant drag (any acceleration while in orbit shows the most dramatic impact on the opposite side of the orbit)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:08PM
Exactly my point. Now combine that with the potential for collision at those higher altitudes and the fact that we're seeing recent debris generating events that will stay in orbit for decades or longer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @11:52PM
Unless ofc you're playing ksp and the object is subject to a kraken drive physics bug. Then all bets are off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:56PM (1 child)
This is not how momentum or energy works. The total energy and momentum from a collision can't result in more of both. However, that does not mean that 10% of the mass can't receive enough increase in both momentum and energy to reach a higher orbit if the other 90% loses enough to make up the difference. Yes, the odds of that happening enough to cause Kessler Syndrome from LEO is pretty low, but if we do get Kessler Syndrome, it's going to be unexpectedly due to something like this as we are already monitoring the debris in orbit closely enough that we should know if we reach a critical point for that result.
In all likelihood, the engineering to effectively remove the junk from orbit will probably come along well before LEO becomes an issue for this, but it's still best to be mindful that we don't yet have the capability to do clean up on that scale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 05 2022, @06:31AM
At the point of the collision you have a position and a velocity vector for any piece of debris from the collision. Plot the orbit. The only way the perigee can be as high as the collision is if the debris leaves the collision point exactly in a tangent plane at a speed greater than that for a circular orbit. And that is only to equal the height. Every other possible velocity has a lower perigee.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @09:31PM (1 child)
Even if it increases the velocity at impact, it's still going to come back down to that altitude and back into a (ralitivly) thicker bit of atmosphere. If one small part has more energy than the origional whole, it's robbed it from another bit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @04:58PM
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 01 2022, @10:43PM (3 children)
Yeah, debris can take on highly elliptic orbits. But, remember, that elliptic may be hundreds of miles high at it's apogee, but it's going to dig deep into the atmosphere at the other end. So, your debris might last two, three, four orbits, then it's toast.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:00PM (2 children)
Only if perigee (the point of closest approach to Earth) is digging deep. As noted by an AC, initial perigee of high energy pieces will be the altitude of the original collision.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:20PM (1 child)
Not correct. The impact altitude is the maximum perigee, but in half of all cases initial perigee will be lower, including 2/3 of cases where apogee is raised. Lateral acceleration doesn't affect altitude. Forward raises apogee and backward lowers perigee. Up and down both increase apogee while decreasing perigee.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @07:54PM
Which incident is a lower velocity and hence, lower energy piece.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @12:16PM
There ain't no bugs in space. Only features.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:12AM
and now I am EMPEROR OF ALL THE WORLD. King nigger penis.
so FUCK YOU who oppose me.
good day sir.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:31AM
OPERATION PENIS:
-----*------------------------
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to suck as many erect
penises as possible within 15 minutes. All semen must be swallowed or you
are disqualified. The winner of the Op will get his cock sucked by none
other than PUTIN HIMSELF!
Do you accept these terms? (Y/n):
(Score: 3, Interesting) by oumuamua on Saturday January 01 2022, @02:30PM (19 children)
why do we need 4 or 5 satellite constellations when the earth is already well covered with hard-wired internet access and almost completely covered via cellular access.
If orbital space is indeed a limited resource then regulate it or put up a 'non-profit UN internet constellation' to be used by every country.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @02:37PM (4 children)
Satellites seem more environmentally friendly than digging and laying cables.
You ignore hundreds of millions of rural people who are not well covered with hard-wired or cellular internet access. You also get to connect all islands, boats, and planes with satellites.
The amount of satellites needed will for multiple constellations will probably not reach even 1 million. That's a manageable number.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @02:49PM (3 children)
Don't worry access is coming to those poor people
https://www.agriculture.com/news/business/house-committee-approves-43-billion-rural-broadband-bill [agriculture.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @02:56PM
Yes, because Starlink got $885.5 million of it.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday January 01 2022, @03:56PM (1 child)
How many times have they tried that before?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:47AM
I believe this is the fourth time. The contracts give them ten years to sit on the money before pocketing it, and they've been at it since the 90's when AT&T sued the first national fibre-to-the-home network into bankruptcy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:43PM
Because the earth isn't already well covered, and without satellites never will be. Only half of the world's population has internet access at all, let alone broadband. Orbital space and RF bandwidth are already regulated by international treaties, which SpaceX is complying with. What their competitors are complaining about is that SpaceX started offering a better product for a lower price and it upset their gravy train, which is what free market capitalism is supposed to do.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 01 2022, @10:48PM (6 children)
We don't actually need the satellites. Musk is taking advantage of corporate corruption. I can't address other countries, but here in the US, congress has paid the telcos for that "final mile" of broadband internet repeatedly. The telcos take the money, and fail to deliver any final miles. Musk's constellations do an end run around all the corrupt bastards. He intends to deliver the "final mile" that the telephone companies have been promising for 20 years, and more.
If/when corporate executives decide to compete with the satellites, if/when they get off their dead asses and build out those final miles, then the satellites will prove to be uneconomical. They can't compete with set-it-and-forget-it fiber, or even copper.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday January 02 2022, @02:11AM (2 children)
Are you sure? Even fiber has recurring costs. It can be cut or damaged, and equipment needs to be serviced.
People have offered tens of thousands of dollars to get connected and been rejected because ISPs still don't want to build out to them. Meanwhile, Starlink can go global even without the $10 billion estimated cost to fully deploy the constellation. The satellites are to be deorbited every 7 years, at least to start, so maybe the costs ramp up to $50 billion over a few decades (the satellite costs might decline a bit, while launch costs will drop to negligible levels with Starship). It also has ground stations which can be optional in some cases but are inevitably needed to connect to the backbone.
If ISPs have been handed hundreds of billions in subsidies to connect more people, but still won't bother capturing certain rural customers, then there's no reason to believe they ever will compete with satellite-based internet. Meanwhile Starlink will largely stay out of metro areas which are bread and butter for wired ISPs.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @03:06PM
I live in a major metro area and can't get good internet. Not because the infrastructure is bad, mind you. It's less than 20 years old. Not because the ISPs can't provide it; a couple blocks away (on the same plant) gig fiber is available.
I can't get it because AT&T and SuddenLink have an oligopoly franchise agreement for this area. A few blocks away, where the good internet is? Google Fiber is available, so they have to compete and do offer it. I can't get Google Fiber here, so they don't bother. Even though, as I said, I'm connected to the same damn CO.
So, yeah, this is how they act in a major metropolitan area they've _already built out_. I have no expectation of these companies doing anything to spread to rural areas with a much lower return on cost ratio. Their track record of blocking small ISPs doing the same thing doesn't help. They'll never serve the remote areas if given any choice, so let companies like Starlink handle it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:56PM
Indeed. Remember that nowadays the only survival gear you need in the woods is a one foot piece of fiber cable. If you get lost, then bury the cable. And hitch a ride on the backhoe that comes by to dig that up.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday January 02 2022, @04:50PM (2 children)
> They can't compete with set-it-and-forget-it fiber, or even copper.
How do you figure? Cabling is relatively cheap when you can use what's already there, but installing it in the first place is quite expensive.
First, there's no such thing as "set and forget" infrastructure - it needs constant repairs and maintenance. Or have you never in your life experienced a power, phone, or internet outage? That's usually physical damage to insufficienty maintained infrastructure that has to be repaired.
Secondly, the cost of deploying copper of fiber is substantial. A quick google says something like $20,000/mile for 12-strand fiber. That's going to get very expensive, very quickly in any area where you only have a few dozen people per km - and most of the land area in both the U.S. and the world is inhabited by fewer than 25 people per km^2)
Thirdly - you need more than the cable, you also need lots of switches, hubs and other routing equipment. A quick search says a big part of the cost of fiber rollout is the switches - something like $10,000 for a 24-port fiber switch.
Satellite orbits are meanwhile are almost as much "set and forget" as cable, even more so in some ways as you never have to worry about windstorms, falling trees, earthquakes, etc. damaging them. And the satellites themselves replace all the electronic/hub infrastructure that you'd need on the ground.
In rural areas cell towers are *far* cheaper than wired infrastructure since there's so much less per-customer infrastructure to build and maintain - but even that has a hard time competing with satellites: a cell only has a best-case range of 50-75km on flat terrain (2,000-4,400 km^2), which can rapidly fall to only a few km with lots of dead zones in rough terrain like mountains or valleys.
Compare that to Starlink's plan of ~12,000 satellites to supply global coverage without needing any ground-based network infrastructure. That's 42,500km^2 per satellite, 12,300km^2 if we ignore the oceans. Which means each satellite does the work of 3-6 cell towers on flat land, which admittedly isn't great... but replaces as many as 628,000 towers in the mountains, with virtually no dead zones.
The only thing that makes it hard for satellites to compete is the cost of launching them. And that cost is coming down rapidly. Especially for companies closely partnered with the world's first reusable launch company.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:15PM (1 child)
I really can't remember the last time the telephone was down. I guess it happens, but I can't remember ever experiencing it. I'm don't think I've known anyone whose phone service was cut, other than non-payment of the phone bill. It seems that Ma Bell knew what she was doing when she installed telephone lines around the country.
Electricity goes down routinely around here. The electric company still threads their lines through the trees, so every time there is a real storm, something is damaged.
As for cost - various entities around the nation are now rolling out fiber to places that AT&T was already paid to do so.
You mention cell towers - they aren't the answer. In my area, reception positively sucks. My home is all but a dead zone. To get to a good reception area, I have to drive 2 miles any time, sometimes 3 miles, and there are other dead zones all around me. Text works, but phone reception is pretty much out of the question. If AT&T were prepared to triple or quadruple the number of towers, then cellular might be a solution. That wouldn't cover all of the country, but it would bring most of the population into the net.
But, I think you've helped to make my point. In today's world, with corrupt telephone companies, satellites can compete. In an ideal world, where telcos actually worked to extend coverage, I don't think satellites could compete. Certainly, the margin of competitiveness would be cut drastically.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday January 02 2022, @11:16PM
I still don't see why you don't think satellites can compete.
Cell is *far* cheaper than wired anywhere terrain is gentle.
Satellite is potentially cheaper than cell, and doesn't care about terrain. So it could be far cheaper in rough terrain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @12:08AM (3 children)
Because 'almost completely' is nowhere near good enough, for the poor bastards who live in the areas that it misses. "Just move to the city" is also a non-starter.
I don't disagree that having more than one constellation for this is stupid, because it is. But supposing we do limit ourselves to one, putting it under the auspices of the UN is even stupid-er. As is leaving it in the hands of any government, and most private companies.
I acknowledge that doesn't leave any other options, but pointing out we're screwed doesn't make me wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:29AM (2 children)
Having more than one constellation isn't actually a problem since the combined size will be the same regardless. If it takes 80k satellites to meet demand then that is how many there will be, whether they are all owned by one company or divided between ten smaller operators.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Sunday January 02 2022, @11:28PM (1 child)
Whether the total number of satellites needed is independent of the number of vendors depends on whether the satellites are bandwidth limited or coverage_area limited. If each vendor needs 20,000 satellites to cover the globe, 8 vendors need 160,000 satellites.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Monday January 03 2022, @10:08AM
There are some benefits - economies of scale - to having one huge constellation serve everyone, but there are also benefits to competition and redundancy. If any of the other networks actually launch I could see businesses having contracts with two or more providers just to make sure their internet doesn't go down.
200 million years is actually quite a long time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:04PM
Large portions of the world are not connected, nor are they likely to be connected any time soon. There's also issues with internet connectivity during natural disasters where this could be helpful. Being able to reach people via the internet with just the need for a basic generator and completely mobile internet connection would change the priorities for what services go online first. If you don't need more than that, it might mean that they can focus on getting power back and not bother with telecommunications for a while later. So, rather than replacing what there was, they might opt to take advantage of the disruption to replace what there was with something more reliable or effective. If you're going to run wires again, you might as well run fiber rather than copper. Sure, it's more expensive, but you're already spending most of the same money to run the physical connection either way, so you might as well spend a bit more and not have to do it again for a generation.
On top of that, you've got areas where autocratic regimes impose significant restrictions on the use of the internet. Having internet that's in space and connected to companies operating in areas where there are relatively lax rules related to speech is actually a pretty significant advancement for humanity. Sure, it's never completely free, but considering the risks already associated with smuggling media into those areas, this probably isn't that much more of a risk.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @07:37PM
Well, as others have already noted it's not well covered with hard-wired internet or cellular access. And Starlink would be significantly better than that cellular access and maybe the hard-wired internet too.
Starlink is already there (and would be usable by every country, if they weren't more interested in blocking/milking it). That UN internet constellation isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @03:18PM (4 children)
"His comments, made in an interview with the Financial Times, came in response to a claim from Josef Aschbacher, head of the European Space Agency, that Musk was “making the rules” for the new commercial space economy. Speaking to the FT earlier this month, Aschbacher warned that Musk’s rush to launch thousands of communications satellites would leave fewer radio frequencies and orbital slots available for everyone else."
Saying that X made the rules and space is big and birds can fly at 10Meter spacing seems an unnecessarily lame exchange. The FCC, historical tragedy of the commons stories and current collision avoidance margins say otherwise.
What seems more the actual case is that SpaceX didn't make the rules. They were given them and they chose to use them to their advantage. ESA and many others had the same opportunity to use the same rules and chose not to.
It may be that the use it or loose it hoops the FCC required SpaceX to jump thru forced more launches than are economically reasonable inorder to secure spectrum rights. But now is not the time for ESA to complain.
So who is the economically reasonable customer for the current constellation? Feels like a rich few thing except where they have lots of ground stations. Is there a cost model somewhere to see how they are doing?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @09:24PM (3 children)
Starlink won't be economical until they can get the user terminal cost under control, and they can get enough ground stations built. Starship is the other bottleneck. The entire system depends on having a very large and widely distributed customer base, so rural home users are their primary market. They have hundreds of millions of potential customers worldwide, and for most of them Starlink will be their first ISP.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 01 2022, @10:53PM (2 children)
Starlink can deliver broadband internet in places where no one delivers, at any price. If the choice is to pay hundreds (or even thousands) for a modem, or to have no service, many people will pay the hundreds. In fact, nothing prevents a community from purchasing the downlink hardware, then running copper or fiber to members of the community. A village of 700 people in some mountain valley pools their money, installs the hardware, and like magic, they have internet!
AT&T hasn't made it to that valley in the last 20 years, they weren't going to get there in the next 20 years either. Starlink is going there, now.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:36AM (1 child)
This is true, but most of their customers will be buying $500 individual kits and paying $100/month. They need to sell many such units to pay for the network, and if they can afford that for most of their customers then they can afford it for all of them. The $1300 each dish currently costs (down from $3k) simply isn't economical, and they will need to produce them in large volumes to get the price down anywhere near their $300-500 target. 700 people pooling for a dish simply doesn't achieve the required economy of scale on Starlink's end. I'm not saying it won't happen, or that it isn't a Godsend for those people, but it can't be Starlink's core market.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @06:10PM
Yes, but compared with the tens of thousands of dollars it can cost to connect people that are outside an area serviced by wires, it's still a great deal. Theoretically, the UBI is supposed to cover extending service to rural areas, but there's been no enforcement of that when the ISPs get funding.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday January 01 2022, @04:34PM (10 children)
And thus does someone with no clue about orbital mechanics or even it's basic concepts speak.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @04:56PM (4 children)
Yes? Did you have something to add?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @05:56PM (1 child)
Butbut cuddle puddle couch. As a good man who is good with the ladies and frequently gets laid, I cry foul that the Musky one has ladies. I should have those ladies instead, since I am a good man who will treat them right and keep them safe in the kitchen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @07:02PM
Just keep them out of the fridge.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday January 01 2022, @06:16PM
nope, because unlike Musk I know enough about orbital mechanics to know that I don't know enough to chime in on how wrong his statement is. :)
Musk may be brilliant in some areas but his thinking is 2 dimensional [youtu.be].
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @06:50PM
He might not add it, but I will: Musk clearly doesn't understand orbits and orbital mechanics (or he is lying, take your pick). He should talk to the smart people he has working for him before making ignorant statements like these.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @07:03PM (2 children)
And thus does someone with no clue to Musk's education background speak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk [wikipedia.org]
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/ [reddit.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @07:10PM (1 child)
How does that show that he understands orbital mechanics and orbits? Because he majored in physics?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 01 2022, @08:46PM
Ah you missed the Reddit link, quotes from professionals, some who understand orbital mechanics, who have interacted with him
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 01 2022, @10:59PM (1 child)
Does Musk have the wherewithal to hire people who DO understand orbital mechanics?
Show of hands: How many of us have worked for someone who did not really understand out jobs? It is not essential that the people in the front office really understand exactly what you do. It is essential that those people keep your paycheck coming, it is not essential that they understand the difference between a widget and a wodget.
If you call out every manager you ever meet for talking out his ass, you will soon be unemployable.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 02 2022, @05:41AM
Starlink couldn't be operational if the people running it don't know their business. Musk's strongest point as a CEO has always been finding people who know what they're doing and putting them to work. To do that he has to know enough to tell the real engineers from the fakers. It doesn't stop him from talking out his ass, but it does mean that he understands when his engineers get technical, and that matters with high tech companies like this.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 02 2022, @07:49PM
On the side, why shouldn't SpaceX be making the rules (or just as likely in response to SpaceX's actions)? ESA has been fucking around for decades. They had plenty of time to encourage a European commercial launch industry that could be making the rules instead.
My take on this is that just like any other field of human endeavor, good rules are made in response to human action. Without SpaceX to actually try something challenging, there would have been no incentive to improve the regulatory environment of space.