Any indication of whether the vague “2023” promise for the large swathe of Eastern United States availability will actually come to fruition? Or is it like Autopilot in that it will perpetually be 6 months in the future?
not at all the same thing; elon, like all people, is fallible. he's not an engineer and CEO and visionary and project manager and salesperson. he's just a salesperson who likes engineering and didn't finish his college degree.
as you can already see, aligning with conservative fascists on twitter/X isn't really doubt free. also he doesn't design starlink, thousands of engineers do.
> not at all the same thing; elon, like all people, is fallible. he's not an engineer and CEO and visionary and project manager and salesperson. he's just a salesperson who likes engineering and didn't finish his college degree.
Elon Musk obtained a B.A. in Physics and a B.S. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, with concentrations in finance and entrepreneurial management. These degrees were officially conferred on May 19, 1997.
Sources:
1. Ron Ozio, Director of Media Relations at the University of Pennsylvania, confirmed Elon Musk's educational background.
It's fascinating how some individuals still spew blatantly false information online when it's easily verifiable. All for a lame attempt to dunk on someone.
He claimed to have been admitted into graduate program at Stanford. That was likely just the masters program. Regardless, that’s the “didn’t finish part” as he admitted he dropped out.
His BA diploma is missing any reference to physics. This is the same school that graduated Donald Trump.
>In 2019, Aaron Greenspan, owner of the legal website Plainsite, as well as a frequent critic of, and litigant against, Elon Musk, asked Penn for a statement on Musk's degrees. In response, the university's public affairs office stated that:
>>Elon Musk earned a B.A. in physics and a B.S. in economics (concentrations: finance and entrepreneurial management) from the University of Pennsylvania. The degrees were awarded on May 19, 1997.
If the university itself says they awarded him the degree, then I am not sure what the issue is?
Why do for Musk companies play this game? CEO gets a lot of credit if he has the right strategy, invests in the right place and puts the right people in control.
Musk a few years ago fired Starlink leadership and took more control and evalute new leaders. Many on HN were doing the usual "haha Musk an idiot" thing but he decitions have clearly lead to a successful program.
If Musk was the CEO for a year and Starlink was develope before, he might be getting to much credit. But he has literally been in charge for 20 years now.
Literally everybody understands that SpaceX has lots if people working on these projects.
What does that have to do with anything. Why zoes Musk get shit on for one very minor ristriction when the system he built is literally helping a nation being invaded. But instead of talking about that people bring up anything that is not 100% perfect.
As you implied, reductively saying “running a website where you post 280 characters is something that is easy for someone who is good at running companies that are good at doing other things” is laughably untrue.
Starlink is not as amazing as it's made out to be. There have been many LEO constellations before it, but due to the space industry as a whole being unattractive to investors, it didn't get any attention until musk got into it. Starlink as a technology is nothing new; what is new is their launch cadence that gives them the ability to put so many satellites into space.
They are still not making money and will require starship before that happens. You can look at other ventures like one web that just didn't get the press that starlink got despite having similar characteristics. Vertical integration with the launch is the only thing that starlink apart technology wise.
Nobody was arguing that point. I'm disputing the fact that Starlink, as a satellite internet service technology, is doing anything new. The launch cadence due to SpaceX's progress on rockets has nothing to do with the Starlink side.
Starlink's median download speeds in the US dropped from 90.6Mbps to 62.5Mbps between the first and second quarters of 2022, according to Ookla speed tests.
Satellite broadband has been able to hit 200Mbps to a single terminal for over a decade, but it makes no business sense to do that. This is why Starlink speeds are slowly degrading to where legacy satellite companies are. So having an anecdote from 4 years ago where the first Starlink terminals hit those speeds has really no basis in reality today as the system fills up.
I'm not sure how many times you want me to repeat the same comment, but anecdotes don't match reality. Ookla and the FAA consistently show Starlink speeds on the decline to about 1/3 of what you're seeing for most users. The fact that you're in a (temporarily) uncongested area doesn't mean your speeds will stay what they are.
It's a little weird to me that you're telling me the thing I just experienced "doesn't match reality". You can say it doesn't match the typical experience or something, but surely what I just experienced is reality.
What me being in a relatively uncongested area means is that I'm exactly the kind of customer Starlink was meant for...
So much nonsense. Starlink is nothing new lol. And sure launch is the only thing differnet about it, mmh sure.
You shit on Starlink and then hype up OneWeb a system that is generations behind technologically, went bust and has far, far, far less capability. While also being worst for space pollution.
Also SpaceX just made a profit, despite investment in future Starlink and Starship. Starlink is already cashflow positive and its still in its first generation.
First of all, quantity is a quality all on its own. This has to be repeated often, having one of something is far easier then having 1000s. So even if, nothing in Starlink was knew, nothing that is one Starlink was ever produced the way it is for Starlink. Starlinks vertical integration and mass production is totally knew in the sat industry.
Now since you might not want to count that (despite mass production of sats being a huge challange), lets look at some other things. While Electric propulsion isn't knew, it wasn't exactly common specially for non science missions. Starlink v1 used Krypton, as far as I know Krypton wasn't used on operational sats. The Starlink v2 Argon thruster is pretty damn revolutionary in its performance and the first use of argon on operational. So if you want to name 'one' thing this would be it and it isn't really debatable.
Starlinks laser communication is top of the line in terms of performance and having a whole constellation of laser link sats coordinating for best connection is certainty unique. And not as a research project, but actually operational on commercial sats.
Starlink flat construction is also pretty unique, making so many sats stack-able is a significant advance if you compare it how the other largest constellations were deployed. There is additional innovation in the way they are deployed threw a rocket rotation and a spring mechanism, its unique and brilliant.
The Starlink sats also use a sun shield to make the sats harder to see for earth observation, as far as I know this has not been done before.
Starlink operations is also whole unique, on a personal per sat bases SpaceX is leading by far. SpaceX has a very small team for operations and made excellent use of automatic avoidance on a large scale, doing avoidance even for even unlikely collisions.
We simple don't have all the information, we don't know everything there is to know about the antennas for example. They are likely quite a unique design as the ground terminals are, but we just don't know.
I could go on to talk about ground systems as well, be lets leave it here.
The simple reality is, Starlink as system is fundamentally revolutionary. Any claim that cheaper rockets is the only 'new thing' is basically putting a board before your head and screaming 'lalalalal'. Even being charitable and assume that all individual technologies were demonstrated as research before doesn't change how revolutionary the system as a whole is.
Dishy is the first phased array antenna widely available to consumers, as far as I know.
Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation. The scale is truly new. The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system.
> Dishy is the first phased array antenna widely available to consumers, as far as I know.
Dishy is the first phased array antenna that was willing to take a huge loss on each sale to consumers. This goes back to the point of getting VC and FCC money to subsidize the service. The estimated cost of the dish is still $1100-$2000 since SpaceX doesn't have any phased array technology that's proprietary, so at $500 they're taking a loss.
> Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation
Massive is a property of the launch cadence and not anything specific to the satellites.
> The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system.
What is different about the satellites compared to something like Iridium, O3b, Intelsat, etc?
The fact that I can get a 210+ Mbps bandwidth[1] for a monthly cost comparable to the cheapest alternative ISP available to me (which forces 10 Mbps cap on me)?
How much would it cost to blast that speed for 24 hours on Iridium? Trick question, Iridium is "176 Kbps to 704 Kbps"!
[1]: Just ran a speed test for that number, it's actual not theoretical.
Flat pack design for one. Cheaper propulsion. Laser links for truly global coverage. Massively lower price per bit. Around $1 per GB (comparable to Jetpack like plans for 4G servics) for the most expensive public Best effort plan
There's no FCC subsidy for it. And the fact it's still running means it wasn't necessary for deployment. It will just make profits come faster. Or losses stop faster
The loss on the phased arrays is much bigger since there was a commitment to $2400 for the first million.(Ukraine is a big source of losses if the Feds haven't fully paid up)
Flat design is irrelevant and is not a differentiator. Cheaper propulsion is speculation unless you have data to prove otherwise.
ISL has been around for a long time (see iridium). SpaceX achieved higher rates, though.
They won $900M in RDOF funding (based on a lie), which is still in limbo because of the poor performance. It's likely they will still get some or all of that since not all $900M was tied to the same speed tier. There is absolutely no proof this can be sustained forever, just like there isn't for Uber or Lyft not being profitable.
Other phased arrays with their specs do not sell for much more. They're small, low G/T, low EIRP, "cheap" units.
I remember looking for a Ku Band Phased array for a large drone. Cheapest I could find from a reputable company was $16k.
Kymeta dishes in Ukraine that replaced starlink go for $25k minimum
Not one dime of RDOF was paid. And knowing how the last RDOF equivalent worked they had every right to apply and get awarded (delivery is dubious though except in less densely populated areas). They don't seem to fake speed tests too unlike the US Telco they are partnering with for direct to cell.
The flat design means way more sats per launch. And that means you're mass rather than volume limited. It's a big difference maker since theres no central stand. Check out the SpaceX OneWeb launch as a comparison.
Iridium links are microwave. SpaceX is a laser. The tech is licensed. It's not just bit rate. And I don't think you can do 10 to 20 up on Iridium. is it possible? Is it possible at say Viasat Maritime prices? Iridium to carry drone video and/or Netflix at $10k to $20k p/m?
Is it financially viable? Time will tell. Some space economist claims SpaceX twisted the arm of the Feds for over a billion in Ukraine. I don't believe him
Starlink latency is still too high, and goodput is too low, especially as they oversubscribe their service. This will help a bit, but it’s no panacea for Starlink’s woes.
You seem to have forgotten the slogan "Better than nothing". Starlink is the best ISP available to me, and some 10-20x better than its competition. If you can do better with something else, please do.
>Starlink is one of a growing number of makers of small satellites that are focused on providing satellite-based internet, including Amazon.com's (AMZN.O) Kuiper, Britain's OneWeb and venture capital-backed Planet.
Planet is in the earth observation business, not satellite internet
66 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadas you can already see, aligning with conservative fascists on twitter/X isn't really doubt free. also he doesn't design starlink, thousands of engineers do.
Elon Musk obtained a B.A. in Physics and a B.S. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, with concentrations in finance and entrepreneurial management. These degrees were officially conferred on May 19, 1997.
Sources:
1. Ron Ozio, Director of Media Relations at the University of Pennsylvania, confirmed Elon Musk's educational background.
The information can be found at: https://undergrad.wharton.upenn.edu/alumni-leaders/ | (Elon Musk, C’97, W’97) https://magazine.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/fall-2010/he-wont-...
2. Additional information about Elon Musk's education can be found at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Elon-Musk#ref341081
It's fascinating how some individuals still spew blatantly false information online when it's easily verifiable. All for a lame attempt to dunk on someone.
His BA diploma is missing any reference to physics. This is the same school that graduated Donald Trump.
More doubt here: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-physics-degree/
Truly incredible!
Musk a few years ago fired Starlink leadership and took more control and evalute new leaders. Many on HN were doing the usual "haha Musk an idiot" thing but he decitions have clearly lead to a successful program.
If Musk was the CEO for a year and Starlink was develope before, he might be getting to much credit. But he has literally been in charge for 20 years now.
Literally everybody understands that SpaceX has lots if people working on these projects.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_...
There is no precedent for this, and it was a credible question whether Russia would use anti satellite weapons triggering a larger war.
As you implied, reductively saying “running a website where you post 280 characters is something that is easy for someone who is good at running companies that are good at doing other things” is laughably untrue.
They are still not making money and will require starship before that happens. You can look at other ventures like one web that just didn't get the press that starlink got despite having similar characteristics. Vertical integration with the launch is the only thing that starlink apart technology wise.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/09/ookla-starlinks-...
Starlink's median download speeds in the US dropped from 90.6Mbps to 62.5Mbps between the first and second quarters of 2022, according to Ookla speed tests.
Satellite broadband has been able to hit 200Mbps to a single terminal for over a decade, but it makes no business sense to do that. This is why Starlink speeds are slowly degrading to where legacy satellite companies are. So having an anecdote from 4 years ago where the first Starlink terminals hit those speeds has really no basis in reality today as the system fills up.
What me being in a relatively uncongested area means is that I'm exactly the kind of customer Starlink was meant for...
And these are peak hours rather than median living day hours that providers usually use
You shit on Starlink and then hype up OneWeb a system that is generations behind technologically, went bust and has far, far, far less capability. While also being worst for space pollution.
Also SpaceX just made a profit, despite investment in future Starlink and Starship. Starlink is already cashflow positive and its still in its first generation.
They did not make a profit. That was a speculative article and nobody knows how they're accounting for starlink costs.
Now since you might not want to count that (despite mass production of sats being a huge challange), lets look at some other things. While Electric propulsion isn't knew, it wasn't exactly common specially for non science missions. Starlink v1 used Krypton, as far as I know Krypton wasn't used on operational sats. The Starlink v2 Argon thruster is pretty damn revolutionary in its performance and the first use of argon on operational. So if you want to name 'one' thing this would be it and it isn't really debatable.
Starlinks laser communication is top of the line in terms of performance and having a whole constellation of laser link sats coordinating for best connection is certainty unique. And not as a research project, but actually operational on commercial sats.
Starlink flat construction is also pretty unique, making so many sats stack-able is a significant advance if you compare it how the other largest constellations were deployed. There is additional innovation in the way they are deployed threw a rocket rotation and a spring mechanism, its unique and brilliant.
The Starlink sats also use a sun shield to make the sats harder to see for earth observation, as far as I know this has not been done before.
Starlink operations is also whole unique, on a personal per sat bases SpaceX is leading by far. SpaceX has a very small team for operations and made excellent use of automatic avoidance on a large scale, doing avoidance even for even unlikely collisions.
We simple don't have all the information, we don't know everything there is to know about the antennas for example. They are likely quite a unique design as the ground terminals are, but we just don't know.
I could go on to talk about ground systems as well, be lets leave it here.
The simple reality is, Starlink as system is fundamentally revolutionary. Any claim that cheaper rockets is the only 'new thing' is basically putting a board before your head and screaming 'lalalalal'. Even being charitable and assume that all individual technologies were demonstrated as research before doesn't change how revolutionary the system as a whole is.
Dishy is the first phased array antenna widely available to consumers, as far as I know.
Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation. The scale is truly new. The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system.
Dishy is the first phased array antenna that was willing to take a huge loss on each sale to consumers. This goes back to the point of getting VC and FCC money to subsidize the service. The estimated cost of the dish is still $1100-$2000 since SpaceX doesn't have any phased array technology that's proprietary, so at $500 they're taking a loss.
> Starlink is the first low orbit massive satellite constellation
Massive is a property of the launch cadence and not anything specific to the satellites.
> The older geostationary communication satellites are a distinctly different system.
What is different about the satellites compared to something like Iridium, O3b, Intelsat, etc?
The fact that I can get a 210+ Mbps bandwidth[1] for a monthly cost comparable to the cheapest alternative ISP available to me (which forces 10 Mbps cap on me)?
How much would it cost to blast that speed for 24 hours on Iridium? Trick question, Iridium is "176 Kbps to 704 Kbps"!
[1]: Just ran a speed test for that number, it's actual not theoretical.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37250468
You can say 210Mbps all you want, but that's simply not even close to what most starlink users get.
There's no FCC subsidy for it. And the fact it's still running means it wasn't necessary for deployment. It will just make profits come faster. Or losses stop faster
The loss on the phased arrays is much bigger since there was a commitment to $2400 for the first million.(Ukraine is a big source of losses if the Feds haven't fully paid up)
But consider what other phased arrays sell for
They won $900M in RDOF funding (based on a lie), which is still in limbo because of the poor performance. It's likely they will still get some or all of that since not all $900M was tied to the same speed tier. There is absolutely no proof this can be sustained forever, just like there isn't for Uber or Lyft not being profitable.
Other phased arrays with their specs do not sell for much more. They're small, low G/T, low EIRP, "cheap" units.
Kymeta dishes in Ukraine that replaced starlink go for $25k minimum
Not one dime of RDOF was paid. And knowing how the last RDOF equivalent worked they had every right to apply and get awarded (delivery is dubious though except in less densely populated areas). They don't seem to fake speed tests too unlike the US Telco they are partnering with for direct to cell.
The flat design means way more sats per launch. And that means you're mass rather than volume limited. It's a big difference maker since theres no central stand. Check out the SpaceX OneWeb launch as a comparison.
Iridium links are microwave. SpaceX is a laser. The tech is licensed. It's not just bit rate. And I don't think you can do 10 to 20 up on Iridium. is it possible? Is it possible at say Viasat Maritime prices? Iridium to carry drone video and/or Netflix at $10k to $20k p/m?
Is it financially viable? Time will tell. Some space economist claims SpaceX twisted the arm of the Feds for over a billion in Ukraine. I don't believe him
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36552.1200
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5MEPWsdo-UE
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36165/why-will-sta...
I don't know if it's cheaper because it's something im not particularly familiar with.
But there's people who think SpaceX isn't launching (internal costs) for less than 60 million anyway and reuse isn't saving money
yeah, maybe few space based edge nodes ? makes totally sense
If it’s on the other side of the earth it beats everything.
Routing these packets around the planet would be a huge waste of their limited electrical and transmission resources.
So it will depend very much from where to where. The certaintly can go direct.
It would be interesting to know their internal routing logic but I don't think we know.
Planet is in the earth observation business, not satellite internet
Is this just announcing Starlink is peering privately with Cloudflare now, perhaps solving some of those issues?
Or is this some bigger partnership where Cloudflare is running some portion of Starlink’s internet connectivity?
Most other reporting online is just parroting this Reuters piece so I haven’t seen much interesting additional info.