They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag) if they are DOA based on a quick search. That does mean that they are space junk for a while but not permanent space junk.
> On 19 Jun 2023, at 17:44, b...@uu3.net wrote: > > Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all. > How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit. > > I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere). > If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit. > > I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be > better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places. > Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization. > > We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet. > GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R&D. > > > ---------- Original message ---------- > > From: Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> > To: Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400 > >> >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight >> termination system. >> > > The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the first > time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold them > back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to problems > solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore. > > The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised >> fondag, >> as thought. >> > > The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still > exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the > terms of their contract with the state of Texas. > > There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site >> has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was >> issued for the next 6 months last week. >> > > Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to > the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind > boggling. > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: >>>> >>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to >> really drive down the launch cost. >>> >>> >>> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test >> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the >> media. Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades >> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes. >> >> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the >> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive. >> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch. >> >> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised >> fondag, >> as thought. >> >> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as >> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and >> analysis that exists: >> >> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut >> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase >> >> They are good folk to track. >> >> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of space: >> >> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace >> >> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/ >> >> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily >> progress, with live video feeds. >> >> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site >> has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was >> issued for the next 6 months last week. >> >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight >> termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested >> next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with >> electric and have better motor shielding in general. >> >> Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a >> spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be >> early september. >> >> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56˙˙PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking >> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like it >> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying tech >> reason. >>>> >>>> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to >> really drive down the launch cost. >>>> >>>> But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at >> anywhere close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the 40k >> they need so they literally can't support higher numbers. Their new >> generation of satellite is also suppose to be doing some in-orbit routing >> or something like that which would I would assume will really help on the >> bandwidth front. How much that affects their maximum subscriber base when >> they are fully deployed I don't know but it's bound to be a lot more >> possible subs than they have now. >>>> >>>> I mean, this could be a spectacular flop like Iridium but a lot has >> changed in 20 some years not least of which is the cost of launch. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> On 6/17/23 2:53 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are >> the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling >> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to >> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe that >> makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see >> marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just >> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. >>>> >>>> - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month, >> that's $165M in revenue, >>>> >>>> - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to >> 60 Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats >> in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume >> the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff, >> they aren't launching an external paying customer.) >>>> - The reported price per sat is $250k. >>>> >>>> Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the orbital >> buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for >> sats. >>>> >>>> - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K >> cluster, that's 1200 a year. >>>> >>>> That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. >> Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. >>>> >>>> So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's >> just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing costs >> of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from staff , >> R&D, etc . >>>> >>>> Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. >>>> >>>>> I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will >> he does have big ambitions. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38˙˙PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >>>>>> rather than later? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for >> those services to completely replace terrestrial only service. >>>>> >>>>> Why would they put up 40000 satellites if their ambition is only >> niche? I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you >> will he does have big ambitions. >>>>> >>>>> From my standpoint, they don't have to completely replace the >> incumbents. I'd be perfectly happy just keeping them honest. >>>>> >>>>> As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are >> the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling >> demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to >> overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe that >> makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see >> marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just >> software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. >>>>> >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 4:17˙˙PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>>>>> Mark, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options. >>>>>>>> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. >>>>>>>> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US >>>>>>>> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there >> is >>>>>>>> no service. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not >> a >>>>>>>> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a >> ~1/3 >>>>>>>> take rate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many >> markets >>>>>>> is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers >> that, >>>>>>> since there is only so much money and resources to go around. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the >>>>>>> opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are >>>>>>> capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low >>>>>>> hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative >>>>>>> provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other >> thread. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner >>>>>> rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if >>>>>> they do they could compete with their caps. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike >>>>>> >> >> >> -- >> Podcast: >> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7058793910227111937/ >> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos >> -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
