this post was submitted on 14 May 2025
746 points (98.6% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

2994 readers
426 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CooperRedArmyDog@lemmy.ml 24 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

It is closer to a hyper loop system. For the internet to have low enough latency it has to be put in quite a low earth orbit. That means we need more satlights to make coverage, ballooning costs. However that is not the part that kills it, it is that it is in such low orbit we can expect air resistance to significantly degrade orbits. There are too many satilights to reasonably boost them all, and when they start to degrade it will be too fast to reasonably replace them all.

[–] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 16 points 2 weeks ago

That, and as they burn up upon re-entry, they're fucking up the environment:

https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-reentry-pollution-damage-earth-atmosphere

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And they first batches of the current network are at their end of life. That means that with the same level of investment, growth will slow down, which is terrible for venture capital.

And orbital mechanics is a bitch. You can't add more speed to a certain area (like a city with a lot of people) and less to the empty ocean. So there's a harsh density limit to your subscribes.

[–] GrosPapatouf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I mean, the need for internet satellite is mostly in low density areas. In big cities fiber will always be cheaper and more reliable (except maybe in the US where operators are allowed to fuck you). I hate Musk and I guess Starlink is squeezing their monopoly position right now, but I'm not 100% sure they are not profitable.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, the big problem is that by definition most people live in the places where most people live. Urbanisation is over 80% in Europe and the US (and European countries hold a much looser definition of "urban" than the US).

To increase service to most people, you need to upgrade the entire world, which is expensive.

I'm not 100% sure they are not profitable.

I am. They're reporting a profit right now because theyre calling the cost of new satellites as "investment" and not expenses. In a few years, when every satellite launched is a replacement, those "investments" become running costs, and there goes the profit.

[–] bufalo1973@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe a better answer is WiMax.

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You don't know what you're talking about, the satellites do "reasonably" boost themselves, they have propulsion on board.

After 5 years yes they trash them, but that nots not cost prohibitive for SpaceX. Starlink is brining in a significant amount of money, and it doesn't cost SpaceX all that much to launch a new batch to replace the old. You all seem to forget they are the cheapest and most impressive launch company to date.

What you and nobody else seems to understand is that every year SpaceX is launching more and more rockets and they will only continue to increase their launch cadence. In the next one or two years, they will start using Starship for Starlink launches, and that will significantly increase the amount of bandwidth they can add to the network per lanch.

I'm sure I'll get hate because I'm defending an elon company but everyone here is plain wrong and just making shit up.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

☝️ spitting facts. people love to hate, and complain about the "other side" being delusional. turns out, we ALL can be a little delusional.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yep. Spitting facts like degenerative AI.

Hallucinated facts.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you could actually dispute it without insulting the author then I would consider your input. But you can't, because the facts are correct.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I already outlined exactly why Starlink is not a viable business, but go ahead and pretend I didn't if that's what makes you get hard, Sweetums.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don't see anywhere where you did actually. Even tried to find another comment on your profile. Would you mind linking that for me?

Thanks

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 week ago

Huh. Weird. It looks like two weeks' worth of comments (in a large number of groups) have vanished from my profile without being in the modlogs either.

I'm getting ready for work at the moment, so I'll dig into what happened when I hit work. The short version is that the only viable customer base is rural, and rural economics just can't support the prices that Starlink needs to operate at.

I'll point you to the numbers when I find them, or if I can't find them I'll recreate them.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Never mind. Found it: https://ttrpg.network/post/19127696/14306572

Weird that this isn't showing in my profile.

[–] cole@lemdro.id 1 points 1 week ago

Yeah that's super weird. Maybe some weird federation behavior. I'll probably reply to that comment sometime tomorrow

[–] Aux@feddit.uk -1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Not everyone needs super low latency. Satellite phones exist for a reason.

[–] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Wonderful. They can just talk to their server on the phone

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The number of people willing to put up with the round trip latency to GEO is relatively small. They would only do it if there's no other option. There aren't enough customers to justify the kind of mass deployment Starlink needs to be profitable.

You can put lots of sats in a low orbit and get low latency, but then they either need to be replaced every few years (the kind of capital expenditure that companies are allergic to in the long run) or self-boosting (expensive, and still eventually need to be replaced). You can put them in a higher orbit, but latency goes up noticeably, you need even more sats for coverage, and it's more expensive to put them there. You can put them in GEO and use fewer sats, but latency goes through the roof. These are the options orbital mechanics and current technology allows.

If we had a space elevator or similarly cheap way to access space, then it becomes more viable. Note that while Falcon 9 and Starship potentially make it viable to build one of the space megastructure ideas that have been floating around for decades, it would also crater SpaceX's business model. Chemical rockets would build their own demise (at least for launching from Earth, and there are probably better technologies for scooting around the solar system once you're up there). Musk likely knows that and would fight it.

Or you can build fiber to peoples homes and leave satellites for Antarctica or the Himalayas or such. That works, too.

[–] Aux@feddit.uk -1 points 2 weeks ago

Too many words. What did you want to say exactly?