FCC Denies Starlink Low-Orbit Bid for Lower Latency - eviltoast
  • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s a good thing that these are put on the low earth orbit which decays faster. That means it cleans itself of space junk in a relatively short time. Putting them higher up would mean higher latency and more junk in space for longer amount of time.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The alternative is not “higher orbit satellites”, it’s “put wires on the earth”.

      Firing infinite rockets that fall out of the sky in a year is a bad, wasteful option that only exists because the American government is not under enough pressure to fix its infrastructure problems.

      the rest of the world, even the big countries with lots of remote citizens, they used wires not infinite rockets.

      • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        It doesn’t make any sense to dig cables into rural areas. It would cost a fortune to connect some remote house to the grid. Going wireless is the obvious solution to this and satellite internet gives you much better connection than cell towers. They didn’t dig landlines into poor african countries either but skipped right into mobile phones.

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          You might have a point if launching rockets was cheaper, but launching infinite rockets forever is not cheaper. The rockets fall out of the sky. So we’re talking about one upfront cost or a cost forever.

          • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            We’ll likely have much better technology in the future and the problem will more or less solve itself. In this day and age satellite internet simply just is the most sensible option and probably cheaper aswell. The amount of diesel machinery you’d need to dig all that cable in the rural USA alone would be mind boggling not to mention the enviromental damage of all that digging. These cables don’t last forever either. They too need maintenance and eventually to be dug up and replaced.

            Rocket is just the delivery vehicle for the satellites. It’s not supposed to stay in orbit itself. Building the rocket is what has made space flight so expensive in the past because they were single-use but now with reusable rockets the cost is much less of an issue. They run with renewable fuel aswell - oxygen and methane.

            Space travel is going to be getting much more common in the future and the number of rocket launches is only going to increase either way.

            • echo64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Shockingly, you don’t need to dig. And handwaving away the cost, including the environmental cost of infinite rocket launches forever because “oh magical technology will save us some day” does not help your case.