It's really pretty bad: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-curse-of-elon-musk...
At the very least, there should be some kind of international treaties governing this. The night sky is a common good.
At the very least, there should be some kind of international treaties governing this. The night sky is a common good.
I know people living in remote and even not so remote areas for whom cheap and easy internet access would literally be a live changer, and who wouldn't care less about astronomers having their work more difficult as a consequence, because, again, it would be a literal life-changing event for them in terms of personal safety, agriculture, income or education.
Is it those rural users currently aren't profitable enough to supply otherwise?
And it's not a problem of profitability for some, it's a problem of availability. Some could afford what their urban compatriots pay for internet, but that's simply not possible.
As far as who will pay for it... SpaceX has lower launch costs than anyone else by a significant fraction as well as lower satellite costs (likely by a similar fraction). There are tens or perhaps (globally) hundreds of millions of rural users who these constellations would help, as well as some fraction of more urban users.
Satellite internet already several billion in annual revenues from rural areas, in spite of the terrible service and high (expendable) launch costs. It doesn't take much for SpaceX to be profitable here; being a satellite service provider historically is much more lucrative than being a launch provider. The main unproven hurdle I see is user terminals, not the constellation itself.
indeed, even if you have a ground link, something radio based makes a spectacular backup. even if you've got one good high speed link available, it's unlikely you've got two whose failures are even slightly decorrlated.
Even if off by an order of magnitude, that's well within the price range of consumer terminals.
Oneweb is another story, and regardless of their antenna, it's not clear how they're going to monetize.
Whether or not SpaceX "couldn't solve" the low price point is unknown. I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims they can't do it. Don't be too willing to buy OneWeb's PR. "Special sauce" is marketing speak. Execution is what matters. (This works both ways... OneWeb will eventually be using reusable rockets--i.e. from Blue Origin and others--like SpaceX.)
Please cite a source on that one. If they're putting a motor on just for installation to point to roughly the right spot, that's a ton of money spent on a motor for a single-use item. That will again point to it not being a consumer product. What's more likely is the motor is making up for the poor scan loss of the cheaper phased array.
Musk is trying to get rid of the $100 cost of professional installation by substituting with a $10 motor. I'm not sure it'll be successful (I wouldn't be surprised if professional installation still ends up happening and they eventually delete the motors), but that is the plan. It's just to get a good view of the sky, not to scan. A reliable scanning motor would cost a lot more. (And they need to track multiple satellites at once... can't do that with a single array steered by a motor, has to be beam-steered.)
Source is here: "Looks like a thin, flat, round UFO on a stick. Starlink Terminal has motors to self-adjust optimal angle to view sky. Instructions are simply: - Plug in socket - Point at sky These instructions work in either order. No training required." https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12145487640542167...
There are