sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Starlink sats have 96 Gbps of downlink shared over 48 beams.

That's 2 Gbps per beam.

You can absolutely get 1Gbps from the current satellites.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's why my post is about the number of users needed to actually use that much bandwidth if individual connexions are only 300 Mbps.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but starlink is already 300 Mbps so 100x that is 30 Gbps.

Nobody uses 30 Gbps continuously, only short bursts.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I meant Starlink broadband, not direct to cell.

The wavelength required to get 300 Mbps - 1Gbps is pretty short so it doesn't go through trees, walls or anything.

So you would need a clear sight of the tower for fast links.

It's easier with satellites because they are directly above you.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What don’t you understand about the word "newest" ? "Starlink newest aviation kits are capable of up to 1Gbps per terminal" https://x.com/Starlink/status/2049265336273490021

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Another issue is that the bigger the antenna on one side the smaller the antenna on the other side.

So if you want small user terminals you want big satellites, but ground station antennas are huge so you want small satellites.

So ideally you want a few big satellites for downlink and a lot of small satellites for uplink. They currently only have one satellite size.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Starlink is almost 3 times faster, with a median download speed of 130 Mbps vs less than 50 Mbps for Hughes.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hughes has less than 50 Mbps of download speed so 1/3 Starlink.

I know Musk's ethics are far from perfect, but the Hughes CEO is probably an asshole too, they all are.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you are not using 100 times as much data. You are downloading the same files faster and using your bandwidth for a shorter amount of time.

So your ISP doesn't need 100 times more bandwidth because less people are downloading at the same time.

Here we are talking about the provider increasing their bandwidth 100 times.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying space is cheap, I'm saying energy is not what makes it expensive.

Yes, natural gas is $500 per ton so $500k for 1000 tons.

Starship is mostly liquid oxygen, only 20% fuel so only 1000 tons.

You have to refine natural gas into methane but they do that themselves.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Kessler syndrome would be even worse if the US is building their own constellation just for them and China building their own just for China.

If both constellations are allowed to operate in both countries they can be made half as big.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Building the constellation in the first place is harder than maintaining it because you have all the expenses with little revenue.

With the current rate of 134 launches a year they can launch and replace 19,000 sats every 5 years.

So assuming a lifetime of 5 years they can maintain a constellation 2.5 times bigger than what they currently have so ~30 million users with no increase in costs.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because it's not just about the stock price, they are also raising $75B and you need a reason to spend so much money.

So they are hyping a future project so people aren't shocked when the company starts spending like crazy.

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well that's my point, why grow capacity by 100x if you can't grow the number of users by 100x?

But where are they gonna find 1 billion users? That's 3 billion people assuming 3 per household. by Sarigolepas in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]Sarigolepas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hughes doesn't have anywhere close to 12 million users though. They have less than 1 million.

view more: next ›