the biggest win here are productivity gains. After high speed internet is available, you'll be able to work in the bush with a laptop. away from ridiculous rents and rent-seekers.
While the DPRK would have no means of doing this, the PRC could quite plausibly launch its own jammer constellation if it became enough of an issue.
The most interesting aspect is that an import ban on LEO satellite modems becomes exponentially harder to enforce when you’re the only country that can manufacture them at scale in the first place.
I'm 90% confident that if SpaceX ignored international (and Chinese) law and started broadcasting into China without permission the PRC would be delighted at the excuse to test anti satellite weapons instead of trying to jam them.
Of course, SpaceX wouldn't dare risk the international firestorm of doing so intentionally. But if the service were available in Taiwan, mainland China is only about 100 miles away across the Taiwan Strait.
The connection might be slow and spotty from Fuzhou, but all you'd need is a modem sold out the backdoor of a factory and an account created in Taiwan (perhaps a friend you Alipay for the subscription), and you'd have unfiltered internet in eastern Fujian.
Repressive regimes will ban importation and possession of the antennas, and will prevent citizens from paying for services. A few courageous dissidents will defy the bans but not enough to matter.
Sure - if the want to risk China/NKorea/Iran shooting those satellites out of space. Seems a bad gamble so I doubt they'll provide service to those countries.
Yes, this is going to change the world in a big way. High speed global communication is a paradigm shift. If SpaceX cheap reusability and Tesla all-electric really end up doing the things they promise on a huge scale, then Elon will be 3 for 3 on truly world-changing advancements.
Internet was supposed to change everything yet we are stuck in cesspool of misinformation.
100% sure Tesla will either apply great firewall in China or just shut sats down while they are there, because China will threaten shutting gigafactory.
Your going to have to give a lot more details than that blanket statement because I have been following starlink closely ever since it was announced.
Oneweb is their main competitor who has already launched test satellites but they are going to launch on other companies rockets which are much more expensive than spacex's especially now that spacex is getting reusability down.
Amazon just announced their constellation plans and they either have to launch on expensive non-spacex rockets or have to use blue origin which while they are planning to have fully reusable rockets, those are still years out.
What are the other 3 companies that will be out first and/or have higher throughput and/or how are Amazon/Oneweb better?
Oneweb, telesat, ViaSat, o3b (mpower), and Boeing have all announced. A study from MIT showed telesat's to be the most cost effective from the LEO bunch [1], which is important since it's not clear SpaceX has a path to revenue [2]. and if you've been following starling closely, you know that they will not have anywhere near their full deployment for over 5 years after the first launches. the entire fleet is required for the capacity they have been touting, not to mention the coverage.
And the argument that SpaceX has some kind of moat because of their launch business is simply not true. there are many launch providers out there, and launch costs have gone way down partly due to SpaceX, but also because satellite orders have decreased significantly. SpaceX as a company, needs as much revenue as possible to fund the satellite venture, since their entire company is depending on it. The launch business is not sustainable in providing enough revenue in the future to keep them in business. so SpaceX will have to fight for business from all the other satellites just as much as any other company.
> A study from MIT showed telesat's to be the most cost effective from the LEO bunch [1]
I just read that article and it makes no claims whatsoever in relation to costs.
> which is important since it's not clear SpaceX has a path to revenue [2].
Path to revenue? What does that even mean?
> if you've been following starling closely, you know that they will not have anywhere near their full deployment for over 5 years after the first launches. the entire fleet is required for the capacity they have been touting, not to mention the coverage.
US/Europe coverage is going to be their primary initial target as that is where the most money is and that requires a significantly smaller amount of satellites. Care to enlighten us on what other companies are planning to launch production satellites like spacex is doing next month because the only company I am aware of that has even launched test satellites is oneweb.
It gives a bandwidth efficiency ratio, which is directly tied to cost since the more efficient per bit the system is, the cheaper it is to run. If telesat's is 4x cheaper per bit, how would SpaceX compete?
Path to profit.
You are saying SpaceX launch a handful of these satellites is really going to have any effect?They already launched some and they had propulsion problems. They need upwards of 500 of these in the air just to compete with satellites that have been up for multiple years already.
> It gives a bandwidth efficiency ratio, which is directly tied to cost since the more efficient per bit the system is, the cheaper it is to run.
The source you linked said Telesat had a 4x Gbps/satellite bandwidth over spacex which is not directly tied to cost. Telesat has no mention of satellite weight and spacex plans to launch 40x the amount of satellites as Telesat for their initial constellation and 100x at full capacity if I recall correctly.
> Path to profit.
Spacex has reusable first stage rockets. I don't see how any of the other mass satellite constellation companies that you mentioned can have better margins than spacex.
> They need upwards of 500 of these in the air just to compete with satellites that have been up for multiple years already.
Do those 5 companies you just mentioned somehow don't?
Blue origin will have the same, or cheaper costs by the time it matters. Not sure what your last comment means, but 3 of those 5 are slated to have far more capacity in the sky by 2022.
Read the study again. It's useable capacity. You cannot use the 20Gbps number SpaceX advertises.
The number of satellites is not relevant. It's a single parameter a large number of them which describe how well the constellation will perform. Please see here for more detail:
The satellites are not the hard part, even though they are extremely hard. The hard part is going to be getting a suitable user antenna for a low enough cost that they will make the money back. So far they have not spoken publicly about their user terminal or cost, other than a couple sound bites musk said years ago about how low he wants the cost.
I can actually see this working as a backbone provider. Take any underserved area, rent space on cell phone towers or water towers or grain silos, and deploy an all-in-one kit that has the Starlink antenna along with a WISP transmitter and solar power. Also would work for apartment owners who want to get an additional revenue stream by being the sole provider of internet to their tenants.
So what? The entire purpose of Starlink is to increase global demand for launch capacity. That's the only way they're going to reach the economy of scale to be able to actually reduce launch costs as much as they're capable of. They can break even or even take a loss on Starlink and still achieve a valuable strategic goal.
What about rainy clouds and thunderstorms? While i want to be outside in sunny weather and work on my laptop during rainy day - that's when the connection quality is worst?
The target price means nothing. Musk hasn't talked about them in years. Other companies have tried (and failed) and low cost phased array. Until they're delivering at that price, think of it like musk's original Tesla production rate predictions.
Google image search "iridium hotspot" and "bgan". They range in size from a small ipad to a large ipad. Pretty reasonable for global connectivity (although not built into a laptop's frame).
And the starlink antennae they "hope to get down to the size of a pizza box" (which also of course needs to be powered). This is not a mobile solution.
If I can fit it in a pelican case in a checked piece of luggage (62 linear inches, up to 50lbs), it’s mobile enough. Carry on luggage compatible would spoil me.
