• xor@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      well it might’ve worked if he didn’t turn out to be a fascist… but since most people don’t want to support that, kinda fucks up the business model.

      perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 hour ago

        perpetually burning up satellites in the atmosphere is a pretty shitty business though.

        Exactly. The business isn’t remotely sustainable. All that money being invested into new satellites will, by next year, need to be invested constantly to keep the network at the same size.

        Starlink needs run as fast as it can, just to stay in the same place, and the investment money is finite when people see it’s not going to grow.

      • bane_killgrind@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        There’s a bunch of technology problems that make it undesirable, like the light and projectile pollution in leo

    • Cool_Name@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I just generally doubt anything Musk does because of his track record. However, is there a particular reason why Starlink is inherently not viable? Could a competent person do it or it is fundamentally flawed? To put it another way is it cybertruck bad (yes people want electric cars but not a barely driveable dumpster held together with glue) or hyperloop bad (physics said no)?

      • Red Army Dog Cooper@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        It is closer to a hyper loop system. For the internet to have low enough latency it has to be put in quite a low earth orbit. That means we need more satlights to make coverage, ballooning costs. However that is not the part that kills it, it is that it is in such low orbit we can expect air resistance to significantly degrade orbits. There are too many satilights to reasonably boost them all, and when they start to degrade it will be too fast to reasonably replace them all.

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          And they first batches of the current network are at their end of life. That means that with the same level of investment, growth will slow down, which is terrible for venture capital.

          And orbital mechanics is a bitch. You can’t add more speed to a certain area (like a city with a lot of people) and less to the empty ocean. So there’s a harsh density limit to your subscribes.

          • GrosPapatouf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            43 minutes ago

            I mean, the need for internet satellite is mostly in low density areas. In big cities fiber will always be cheaper and more reliable (except maybe in the US where operators are allowed to fuck you). I hate Musk and I guess Starlink is squeezing their monopoly position right now, but I’m not 100% sure they are not profitable.