We Should Immediately Nationalize SpaceX and Starlink
Technology
496
Beiträge
196
Kommentatoren
1.8k
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
Few words are dirtier to Republicans than "nationalize". They must be torn between following their god-emperor's hurt feelings and allowing Musk's company to be taken over by the government. The best I see them doing is cancelling all contracts and subsidies with SpaceX/Tesla and passing them off to its competitors.
-
That would be national socialism right?
Yes, but don"t say it to Musk's haters...
-
NASA has had it's funding cut year after year for decades. It's far easier to innovate when you have money to back up the r&d and testing.
I wasnt discussing underlying cause, whatever the reason for stifled innovation in some fields possibly evident in NASA it is likely preferable not to pull independent labs into NASA that are having success in these areas.
-
Yes, but don"t say it to Musk's haters...
Who doesn’t hate Musk these days?
He’s pissed of everyone except the ones who want to be ruled by a technobro king.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I would suggest that maybe you should leave SpaceX alone, if you want to still have a space program.
Maybe think about to nationalize healthcare insurance, it seems to be something more usefull
-
NASA has had it's funding cut year after year for decades. It's far easier to innovate when you have money to back up the r&d and testing.
Not just funding cuts, but it was heavily politicized and had its direction changed every 4 years. You can’t plan long term like that. It needs to be a government agency but not at the whim of the president or congress.
-
They're just following in the footsteps of Comcast. The FCC gave SpaceX/Starlink $885.5 million to provide rural broadband after they gave Comcast over $1 billion less than 5 years ago to do the same thing. Starlink actually works out there from what I understand, so I guess that's something.
The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we're talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth's atmosphere, not being recycled.
Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.
-
Also the Tesla charging infrastructure!
Nationalize the cars too, fuck it
-
I would suggest that maybe you should leave SpaceX alone, if you want to still have a space program.
Maybe think about to nationalize healthcare insurance, it seems to be something more usefull
Who needs this bs space program anyway?
-
Dissolve them.
In acid?
-
The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we're talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth's atmosphere, not being recycled.
Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.
Starlink provides service to areas where fiber is impossible. Like the middle of the ocean and actual rural areas where fiber runs could be tens of miles or more between homes. Those are area where no one will build out fiber unless the homeowner is paying for it themselves, the various government programs would never cover those actual rural areas despite what they claim. At best they might cover city outskirts for new infrastructure, where fiber nodes are already relatively close by. They're never adding fiber to existing rural farms and ranches.
They are not a 1:1 service comparison. You would need to compare It to other satellite providers, and there isn't a comparison because all of those are dogshit in comparison to Starlink.
There's a reason it's as popular as it is so quickly despite satellite internet in general not being new. The low earth satellite constellation means a massive difference in capability compared to conventional geostationary satellites. Multiple second latency, slow downloads nowhere near advertised double digit Mbps speeds, single digit Mbps upload speeds and often monthly data limits as low as 50GB per month are what the conventional satellite providers offer.
-
I would suggest that maybe you should leave SpaceX alone, if you want to still have a space program.
Maybe think about to nationalize healthcare insurance, it seems to be something more usefull
Yeah wait until we we have someone in power who gives a shit about science and then re-fund NASA and nationalize SpaceX under the NASA umbrella. (Pipe dreams, I know)
-
The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we're talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth's atmosphere, not being recycled.
Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.
If only we could adjust the plot of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes to where it's mostly just cleaning up dead starlink satellites.
In any case, highly recommended as a fantastic anime. And for those that haven't seen it:
That's a dubbed trailer, but those of you looking for a Japanese language trailer know where to find it or probably have already watched it lol
-
The main problem is that starlink is not a viable ISP like Comcast. Relying on low earth orbit is extremely wasteful as you need to constantly launch more and more satellites. Starlink gives their satellites a 5 year lifespan where fiber can go on for 40 years or more. There are 7,500 starlink satellites, so we're talking a constant replacement of satellites all falling into earth's atmosphere, not being recycled.
Starlink is literal space trash waiting to happen.
I didn't realize how temporary and disposable Starlink's satellites were. They incinerate 4 or 5 a day by de-orbiting them into the ozone. Here's a pretty good CNET article that talks about how they “dispose” of them. IDK, doesn't seem sustainable. They also mention the bandwidth gains are being diminished with the influx of new users, so their solution is more temporary satellites.
-
Man, that was worth the wait!
-
Starlink provides service to areas where fiber is impossible. Like the middle of the ocean and actual rural areas where fiber runs could be tens of miles or more between homes. Those are area where no one will build out fiber unless the homeowner is paying for it themselves, the various government programs would never cover those actual rural areas despite what they claim. At best they might cover city outskirts for new infrastructure, where fiber nodes are already relatively close by. They're never adding fiber to existing rural farms and ranches.
They are not a 1:1 service comparison. You would need to compare It to other satellite providers, and there isn't a comparison because all of those are dogshit in comparison to Starlink.
There's a reason it's as popular as it is so quickly despite satellite internet in general not being new. The low earth satellite constellation means a massive difference in capability compared to conventional geostationary satellites. Multiple second latency, slow downloads nowhere near advertised double digit Mbps speeds, single digit Mbps upload speeds and often monthly data limits as low as 50GB per month are what the conventional satellite providers offer.
i dont feel the cost and waste of all the rocket launches and debris justifies remote areas having satellite Internet
-
This post did not contain any content.
Giving companies to the state doesn't always work well. However giving companies to the workers does.
-
Who needs this bs space program anyway?
The humanity does. Well, maybe not “need” it but deserve it. Finding out about the world around us is what we exist for.
-
Starlink provides service to areas where fiber is impossible. Like the middle of the ocean and actual rural areas where fiber runs could be tens of miles or more between homes. Those are area where no one will build out fiber unless the homeowner is paying for it themselves, the various government programs would never cover those actual rural areas despite what they claim. At best they might cover city outskirts for new infrastructure, where fiber nodes are already relatively close by. They're never adding fiber to existing rural farms and ranches.
They are not a 1:1 service comparison. You would need to compare It to other satellite providers, and there isn't a comparison because all of those are dogshit in comparison to Starlink.
There's a reason it's as popular as it is so quickly despite satellite internet in general not being new. The low earth satellite constellation means a massive difference in capability compared to conventional geostationary satellites. Multiple second latency, slow downloads nowhere near advertised double digit Mbps speeds, single digit Mbps upload speeds and often monthly data limits as low as 50GB per month are what the conventional satellite providers offer.
Those places can get internet from satellites outside of low earth orbit that is simply slower with higher latency.
-
They're just following in the footsteps of Comcast. The FCC gave SpaceX/Starlink $885.5 million to provide rural broadband after they gave Comcast over $1 billion less than 5 years ago to do the same thing. Starlink actually works out there from what I understand, so I guess that's something.
The FCC revoked that award before the money was handed over because starlink wasn't meeting the speeds they needed to meet for the deadline 3 years in the future and they didn't think they would make it. The speeds that money was supposed to help them achieve launching the satellites required to meet it.
No one else had that made up requirement put on them in advance.
The goal that was 3 years in the future, which would have been around now or early 2026, required them to meet their speed (100d + 20u) and latency (<100ms) goals for 40% of the 650k rural users.
They had 1.5 million US customers at the start of 2025, not sure how many are part of this rural 650k but id imagine the majority are, and only 260k of the rural ones have to meet the requirements.
Ookla did a post about starlink in Maine where it shows many of the users are meeting those requirements
Median DL: 116.77 (over the required 100)
Media UL: 18.17 (just shy of the required 20)
90th Percentile DL: 250.96
90th Percentile UL 27.17
If Maine is a representative example, then they are probably meeting their 40% target of 260k rural users despite not getting the money which would have accelerated things and made launches more focused on meeting the goals.
Edit: extra details.
Edit: I was just looking up more info on the program, and the deadline to report would have been in January 2025, so it would have been with the 1.5 million users they had at the start of the year, not around now, or 2026 as I'd said. That Ookla report was December 2024. We should get a report from the FCC (this summer?) that outlines how many others met their respective 40% target.
