• skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    But they specifically don’t want to do that because ensuring a 5 year service life means you are required to continue buying more satellites from them every 5 years. Literally burning resources into nothingness just to pursue a predatory subscription model.

    It also helps their case that LEO has much lower latency than mid or high orbit but I refuse to believe that that is their primary driving concern behind this and not the former.

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      LEO does offer legitimate advantages not just to latency but also for minimizing the abandoned space junk left in orbit. The satellites will deorbit fairly quickly after running out of fuel.

      Though I’m sure you’re correct about the main reason for the choice.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Who’s buying satellites?

      SpaceX is putting up satellites for SpaceX, they’re the manufacturer and operator…

      It’s definitely in their best interest to keep them working as long as possible.

      That said, they’re high end communications devices, very fancy routers essentially. And like all computer technology, these things become obsolete quickly. So even if they could last 20 years, you wouldn’t want them even 10 years from now. 100 GB/s speeds might be great now, but 10 years down the road 10 TB/s could be the norm, so at that point why are you still trying to provide service with ancient hardware 100x slower than it should be.

      • gaael@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Isn’t that part of the grift?

        At the time it looked like one of the main reasons to launch Starlink was to provide SpaceX with a new market, much larger than the usual space launching stuff. Also this meant Felon could get subsidies through 2 different companies.

        • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Isn’t that part of the grift?

          Isn’t what?

          I mean the reason for starlink was that they could, and they could do it for cheaper than anyone else because they would be launching at cost.

          Also, falcon doesn’t really get subsidies for launching. SpaceX got a grant for the rural broadband infrastructure thing, but that’s like a one time thing, it doesn’t really pay for ongoing launches.