View Single Post
  #24  
Old November 25th 18, 12:20 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default SpaceX gets FCC approval to deploy thousands more internet satellites

JF Mezei wrote on Sun, 25 Nov 2018
03:03:36 -0500:

On 2018-11-24 19:49, Jeff Findley wrote:

Dude, you're the one shifting arguments like room temperature mercury.


Again, McCall and you claim this satellite system will be better than
ground based.


Again, your deficient reading skills and defective intellect have
betrayed you, since neither one of us has said any such thing.


I responded it will be very limited capacity compared to ground,


No, you tried to claim it will be as limited as your Canadian service,
which is simply false.


at which POint McCall threw insults at me and I had to defend.


I'm sorry you find THE TRUTH insulting, but even if you do there is no
one forcing you to 'defend'.


Sicne he
doesn't seem to understand concepts such as WDM, he may be an expert at
staellites, but definitely not on ground comms.


Go look up the bandwidth of the internet backbone, you havering loon.



Starlink is going to kill terrestrial based fiber over long distances
because latency will be lower.


You're allowed to have that view if you want. But launching 12,000
satellites will force SpaceX to charge an arm and a leg for that reduced
latency, assuming it materialises and is reliable enough.


You're actually arguing two different things here. One of them is
semi-valid. The other claims the laws of physics are incorrect.
Starlink WILL have lower latency. The laws of physics say so.
However, I disagree with Jeff that this will be sufficient to pull in
customers. I seriously doubt anyone cares that much about relatively
small differences in latency.

Once again, BFR/BFS allows launching these satellites for less than
$40,000 each. The fact that we're talking about 12,000 of them and
producing several thousand of them a year will make them much cheaper
to build than current satellites.



planning a nearly 12,000 satellite network. You gain more capacity by
adding more satellites.


No. You gain more capacity by adding ground stations.


Hogwash. Again, you obviously don't understand Starlink well enough
to even be in this discussion.



Who he's really ****ing off on
the SpaceX side of things are people like Sen. Shelby. The Congressmen
who support SLS are livid at SpaceX's plans for the future because it's
going to eventually kill off their overpriced, expendable, pork-lifter.


I think SLS won't need SpaceX to quietly become unfunded and go away
once senators have found a new shiny project to create jobs in their state.


I know what you think is wrong.


At this point, BFR/BFS is still much more vapourware than SLS/Orion.


Not so much. When has SLS ever flown the real operational article?


SpaceX doesn't even have manned Dragon in operation yet.


That's a NASA problem, not a SpaceX problem.


Yes, Musk has bragged about prototype tanks.


Well, let's see. They've demonstrated they can build the tanks.
They've built and tested engines. They've built the manufacturing
tooling to produce the main hull structures and started setting up the
manufacturing facility.


And yes, it is still way
too early to say whether the project will work as originally advertised,
be scaled back, or devolve into a Falcon Super Heavy project.


It will pretty much 'work as advertised' or they'll cancel it. It's
not going to be 'scaled back'. They're on the third (I think) design
iteration and it's gotten around 10% BIGGER, which is not 'scaling
back'. As for your 'devolve' path, that's rather like claiming that
if the Boeing 747 project had run into difficulties it would have
'devolved' into a project to produce 737s. It's a preposterous
notion.


But just
as you can criticise me for having doubts, I can criticise you for
having full confidence Musk will deliver BFR/BFS as advertised in the
original presentation.


The difference between the two positions is that we assume they're
going to try to do what they've said they're going to do and look at
progress while you assume they won't try to do what they've said
they're going to do and ignore all facts, preferring to assume that
these projects are run by and designed by idiots.


And no, Starlink will not give Musk oodles of money to develop BFR/BFS.
Certaiuntly not in the time frame of the BFR/BFS development.


I'm inclined to agree here. It's rather a chicken and egg problem if
they're relying on Starlink to fund BFR/BFS.


Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Dragon 2 are more than enough for now.


Dragon 2 not yet flying.


Only because NASA is dragging their feet on the manned version and
they haven't used up all the Cargo Dragon V1 in stock yet so don't
need to fly the cargo version.


Yes, SpaceX has made huge accomplishements. and "huge" is an
understatement. But that does not garantee that BFR/BFS will be
delivered as promised.


I view it more as a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'.

snip airplane example

Things that are different are not the same.


So you can blindly believe SpaceX will succeed in scaling its experience
to the biggest rocket ever built and won't be late, will remain on
budger. You're free to believe that.


Oh, I think it will probably be 'late' when compared to Musk's usual
optimistic scheduling and I tend to use the high estimate of what it
will cost to develop. You are NOT free to make **** up and claim
other people have said it, as you do above.


I am free to be mor realistic and not bet my life on that because the
odds of SpaceX hitting major snags are high and the end result may be
scaled back project, or major financial problems.


To be 'more realistic', you would have to actually know something
about the topic and take facts into account. You do neither. Instead
you squawk about how the sky will fall based on assuming that SpaceX
will deliberately do the most stupid things possible.

We'll see how Starlink goes because obviously it's not deployed yet and
therefore cannot be judged as a success or failure.


Yet McCall and you criticise me for not being sure it will be a success
with infinite capacity and latency so low traders will be willing to pay
billions for a simple data link.


You're a lying little ****. Neither one of us has said anything
remotely resembling the preceding.



But, bashing people
who want to see Starlink succeed by saying they "believe in an almost
religious fashion everything Musk promises in his tweets" is a bit off
the mark. What Musk Tweets clearly changes as the systems he's Tweeting
about evolve over time.


Yet, you still believe he will deliver BFR/BFS with the same
capacity/functiosn ., budget and timeframe as originally announced when
he announded that project.


You need to stop telling other people what they 'believe'. If you
want to know what they believe, you need to ask them AND THEN PAY
****ING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY SAY TO YOU.

Your preceding comment about what people 'believe' is just another one
of your scrofulous lies.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain