Me too, 99% of the times I'm not using Google to search for super critical information, so even if we have some flaw in the Overview in general I feel that it's better then the work that I would do for 30 minutes to get a similar conclusion ( with failures as well, not because I'm human that I dont make mistakes just because I'm able to open 8 tabs per google search ).
Don't tell your colleagues about deptry, take the afternoon off and tell your manager you manually removed each dependency one by one and ran the unit tests to check if the dependency was needed ;)
Sad to hear that.
Probably this will be a common problem: good ideas probably dying/losing a lot initial traction because of being rate limited on launch.
By launch volume they are their own biggest customer with Starlink.
However, if Amazon wasn't so up their own ass about not using Spacex rockets, they'd probably be buying almost as many launches to get their project Kuiper constellation up. If they're able to manufacture enough satellites that is.
Which is where the whole "who are their customers" story gets interesting. There aren't any customers of spacex rockets who do as many launches as Starlink does, because the industry hasn't yet caught up to the launch capabilities spacex provides. But they launch for a number of governments, as well as commercial companies.
And not just satellites, but manned missions too! Axiom space has flown non-governmental missions to the ISS, and is planning their own space station. The inspiration 4 mission was a privately-purchased free-flight with only civilians onboard, and was the furthest away any human had been from earth since STS-103 in 1999, at 380 miles.
The world is just starting to catch up to the capabilites offered by modern launch companies!
If Starlink subscribers are (eventually) paying for the non-government for-profit side of launch services (and there is at least one competing network being built to compete with it), what are the economics of that project? How many customers can be served by satellites like these, and how much do you have to charge each customer to make those systems profitable?
ETA: I know a simple answer is something like “all residential broadband use” but I assume in practice there are some technical limits that cap the number of customers/bandwidth that can be delivered.
There's a lot of customers still to be served, especially once you have laser-comm interlink between the satellites. Currently a user has to have a view of a satellite that has a view of a ground-downlink station. Once that limitation is gone it opens up lots of things, like middle of the ocean airplane links, etc.
Plus with laser interconnects they can actually beat fiber optic speed for cross-continent or cross-ocean back haul. (speed of light in vaccum, with fewer switches)
There's a lot of use-cases. I bet on them being able to make money long term.
> Plus with laser interconnects they can actually beat fiber optic speed for cross-continent or cross-ocean back haul. (speed of light in vaccum, with fewer switches)
This sounds boring at first - I don't think any consumer really needs that. But high frequency traders will probably pay quite a lot for it.
High frequency traders don't need this, they colocate at the actual exchange. Going up to space and back is already way more latency than they current have.
What it does do, however, is cut latency across the globe... which can be meaningful for any real time communication. Stuff like voice chat or video calls has meaningful latency if you're going across continents. If that's shaved down even marginally it has a meaningful impact on the user experience.
You're right, but they're currently at what looks from the outside to be at pretty severe risk of losing their FCC spectrum license, much requires them to have a certain number of satellites by a certain date.
That, compounded by the fact that "their" rocket company (blue origin) is well behind schedule, makes it seem a bit foolish. If they weren't Amazon, trying to spend their money on another Bezos business, their absolute refusal to launch even their demo/pathfinder sats on a spacex rocket would look a bit suicidal...
This year they launch for USSF, OneWeb, Nasa, SES, SDA, Intelsat, ViaSat, Iridium, Axiom, ArabSat, PT Pasifik, ESA, Echostar, Maxar Technologies, Northrop Grumman, Jared Isaacman, German Intelligence Service, Astranis, Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea, Ovzon, plus several dozen smallsat operators and of course SpaceX's own Starlink.
Why is so terrible to just open an account? what a drama
you're using a service that costs money to run.
Everyone here likes to be highly paid but keep complaining for those things. maybe I'm missing something here.
Use temp email, create an account and that's it.
If that's the way they (twitter in this case) wanted it, they should have started it that way. May be then, governments and individuals wouldn't have started sharing important information on a platform that requires their audience to forgo their anonymity.
Because if twitter decides that your email (address) is too temp, they might ask you for a phone number. And burner phones without (or with low hurdle) registration / verification aren't a thing everywhere.
