Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps

[borg () uu3 net]

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 <beecher () beecher cc>
To: Dave Taht <dave.taht () 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.taht () gmail com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher <beecher () 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 <mike () 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 <mike () 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 <mike () 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