One could argue that we've had internet way before we've had Starlink. It's not entirely compelling, considering many people in more remote areas don't have great access, but it would also be a bit disingenuous to equate starlink and internet.
Do we need 10000 communication satellites compared to what a terrestrial network can provide? Cellular networks reutilize spectrum much more efficiently than space based systems. I get that there niche applications like rural broadband and military communications. I have no idea if Kessler syndrome is a real possibility but if it is then it doesn't seem worth it.
Yes we desperately do need it. Sure if you are living in your comfy American city you don't see the need. But most places on earth actually don't have a convenient cell tower or terrestrial network. Starlink is much more efficient to cover those areas then manually building out infrastructure there. It's not even a contest.
Yeah but you don't need 10000 satellites to provide cell coverage when 100 would do. Hybrid ground station networks have been a thing for a long time now... if your goal is to provide mobile networks for the lowest possible cost to the end user. That's not Starlink's goal -- these "uninternetnetted" folks don't have money to pay, they typically don't even have electricity. Rural broadband in developed countries do. Telematics does. So don't give me this bs of efficiency for the whole world.
Edit: to be more explicit about the architecture, you can run 100 satellites with better/ larger / more antennas that'll do the work of 1000. SpaceX has a different model, which is more low quality, disposable satellites because they have an inexpensive launch vehicle. Ultimately their system of 1000 might cost the same or less than the 100 high performance satellites. But I can't figure out why the heck they want 10000 satellites unless they want to just have phones communicate directly to orbit, no starlink base station as middlemen. So now they've clogged up LEO so they can replicate what terrestrial networks provide, AND there's a perfectly viable alternative architecture that didn't require nearly as many satellites. That's my gripe.
Someone doesn't know how orbits work, how big space is, or how expensive other satellite services used to be pre starlink. Or how bad it can get with latency.
And yes the unreachable people have family in reachable areas that can pay, sometimes the Internet is what keeps them away, since solar and batteries exist
You mean me, the aerospace engineer, who has published in this field, doesn't know how satellite constellations, link budgets, astrodynamics, the orbital environment, the systems engineering, and the other minutiae of this, doesn't understand the tradeoffs in building these things? What do you know, in a professional capacity? Tell me you're in this field, or piss off.
Tell me how big is space. Like, is it as big as the back of a giant tortoise upon which the flat earth moves? Is it bigger than a bread box, a telephone box, or a TARDIS? Wat is it???
There's another LEO provider with around the number of sats you recommend. What's the provider and how much do they charge for fixed use in the USA?
I worked at a cellular Telco serving customers with an ARPU under $20. Also worked at a satellite tech reseller.
These unreachable poor people were my bread and butter.
Your statements show ignorance about the markets, space and other minutae. Piss off.
How much would these better antennas end up costing? Is Rajeev Badyal an idiot?
Frankly unless you're thinking B2B then cell rather than B2C your choices are worse, not better. We have o3b and it's way better than starlink for stability. But there's several $$$$$$ big reasons I can't pop out to a shop and buy a receiver.