There’s a bit of bias in this video.
While the financial stuff is compelling he comparison to other satellite providers is pretty off.
Upload and download speeds are much closer to regular fixed speeds. For me in the suburb of a major city 97 down 13 up was faster than what I had from Comcast (80 down 6 up). 80down and 6 up was also enough for 5 of us working and schooling from home. (We jumped to 1gig Frontier fiber when it became available last year almost entirely due to Comcast’s data cap)
The 600-750 ms latency of standard satellite is going to be bad for more than just gaming, it’ll be noticeable for video conferencing as well.
The top rated $160/month plan from Hughes has a 75GB data cap. Starlink doesn’t. Price wise even including the $600 dish + $100/month charge the first year costs $120 less for Starlink.
The cost lost per user terminal also assumes no manufacturing cost reduction. Most electronics drop in production cost across their lifetime (PS3 being an example) and I can’t see the ground terminal remaining @ $2000. The one caveat is the continued issues with chip manufacturing and supply chain issues. That could potentially keep production costs much higher than they predicted and tank the entire endeavor.
I’m also not a fan of how he presents the Kessler syndrome. Micrometeorite and Orbital Debris (MMOD) is a huge risk. That’s true. He’s right that large constellations of satellites increase the risk of debris chain reactions.
But he’s not right about starlinks orbit being bad. 550 KM with these high drag satellites means any failed satellite will come down in a relatively short time (5-6 years being relatively short). Satellite constellations will need regulations that require EOL satellites to de-orbit themselves and that deployments are clean or Kessler syndrome does become a real possibility.
Shotwells comment about the satellites basically being alone is not untrue. Assuming 80% coverage and assuming all 42K satellites are at the exact same altitude of 550KM (they won’t be) they’ll be on average 1 satellite in a 12,000km^2 area (or on average they will be 105KM apart.)
His comments on MMOD strikes on steel was just for dramatic effect. Every vehicle that flys in or passes through Earth orbit especially LEO is at risk for MMOD impacts. Even James Webb out at L2 took a hit.
The risk of an MMOD strike is managed by
- Ground radar tracking every satellite and piece of debris down to a certain size and warning satellites at risk of collision to maneuver out of the way
- Kevlar and whipple shielding* to absorb impacts up to a certain size
- Vehicle redundancy / margin so an impact by a single particle too small to see but big enough to make a hole can’t take out the vehicle.
(*Whipple shielding test - particpenetrates 1st plate and sprawls against second plate failing to penetrate)
I agree that Starlink has a lot of risks, the cost of the satellites and user terminals has to drop or it’ll be a financial loser. But mass manufacturing tends to do that. The cost per launch has to come down which is what Starship is supposed to provide (big risks here). Starlinks technical capability is demonstrably better than other satellite providers and on par with low/average cable offerings.
Personally I might consider buying the service depending on my location and competition but I probably wouldn’t invest in it.
www.reuters.com
Facebook
Twitter