this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
1184 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

66353 readers
4463 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Bye bye future space launches once we have full or partial Kessler syndrome.

Bye bye earth based astronomy.

But dang this tech is so much better than Hughesnet

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Kessler syndrome doesn’t really apply for purely LEO satellites. They all burn up in a single digit amount of years.

It’s not something to worry about yet.

[–] sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

On the contrary, I think it is something to avoid. Imagine letting a single person ground all space launches for 9 years. And all the pollution that adds to the atmosphere. All the junk landing on people's farms or houses.

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It doesn’t work that way. I dislike Elon as much as the next sane person but we don’t need to invent new reasons to dislike him on top of all of the bad reasons that exist.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sasquatch7704@lemmy.world 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (24 children)

Unpopular opinion: we don't need freaking internet from satellites, just get cat6 in every home and everyone is happy. I'm sure the cost would be lower then having to launch 999999.91 satellites to have similar speeds

[–] SamB@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (17 children)

There are remote areas where cable won’t reach. For example, I need surveillance on a remote farm and I would love to get internet there.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] abcdqfr@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Now get rid of the home and the cable, how do you cover 99.9% of the earth? Nomads need satellite, and so do rural homes too far from an isp fiber/copper endpoint But yes, if starlink has it done, why double the satellites to do it again with a different name? Because it's easier to launch 1000 more satellites than dismantle the system that enables such feats.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Cat 6A caps out at like 330 ft. Also thats a ton of copper.

Fiber optic nonprofit utilities makes more sense in cities and in rural areas we should just subsidize cell phone data plans.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] turnip@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago

Bring back ethernet jacks on phones!

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] bassad@jlai.lu 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Is starlink business model like uber/airbnb? Killing the market with low prices by circumventing regulations to establish their monopoly?

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No, it just vertical integration. You need to send up rockets to make money, so you make sure they never have an empty slot on them by filling it yourself. You get enough satellites up, then you have a revenue generating payload you can send up steady from then on.

[–] bassad@jlai.lu 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Then it is a monopoly building if you take the limited slots before others companies 😁

I was wondering because starlink's terminals are around $500 while eutelsat's are 10k. It seems it can be only possible if you accept massive losses on first years, with help of to investors to keep the company running, to take down competitors. Like uber and many others did, which had years of losses before having income.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 8 points 2 days ago

SpaceX isn't an Uber model, its a goverment leech model. It's had heavily, heavily goverment subsidies to the tune of 18 billion dollars over its 10yr lifetime.

Terminal prices are likely just an economy of scale issue. Much cheaper per unit to make 100,000 than 1,000. Im sure as eutelsat grows the prices will come down.

If Eutelsat and the EU rocket program get 18 billion in goverment investment like SpaceX, im betting they can also accelerate all of the above.

SpaceX doesnt have a moat, it just has the lead. Rocket labs in new Zealand is already hot on their tails. No reason the EU cant join or surpass them.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What will they launch on? Star Link is barely feasible because they can launch at cost on falcon 9.

[–] VeryInterestingTable@lemm.ee 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Look up Ariane 6. It's still more costly than the Falcon 9 but who in their right mind would trust the numbers Elon is sharing? Seems like they both cost around 100million $ per launch. Elon is claming 30million per launch and that he will make it cost 2 million...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

A European Starlink rival’s shares skyrocketed 390% in a week — here’s why

OOOH!!!! OOH!!! I KNOW THIS ONE!!! STARLINK GO BOOM! PEOPLE GO NOPE! TESLAS STOCK PRICE GO (bomb falling sound effects) KABOOM!!!!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] bitjunkie@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

Good. Fuck Starlink.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›