more starlink garbage
the pentagon puppet musk plans to put 42,000 satellites in orbit EVERY 5 YEARS. Yes, the satellites only work for 5 years and then they are literally burnt. So musk wants to literally burn whatever insane amount of stolen capital is needed to build rockets, satellites, launch them etc. EVERY FIVE FUCKING YEARS. And all that so that a few turds in 'rural US' can have 'high speed' arpanet. Of course, it's waaaay cheaper to use ground radios. So what's the actual purpose of this farce? Also, if the pentagon puppet had his way, he would be the figurehead of a global arpanet monopoly. Now ask yourself who wants a global US military monopoly on 'satellite internet'? Is that somthing any half-sane half-decent person would want, let alone a 'cypherpunk'? so how come jim bell and 'grarpamp' are pushing for this kind of utter anti-freedom garbage? Well...
On Monday, July 12, 2021, 04:06:31 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: " the pentagon puppet musk plans to put 42,000 satellites in orbit EVERY 5 YEARS. Yes, the satellites only work for 5 years and then they are literally burnt. So musk wants to literally burn whatever insane amount of stolen capital is needed to build rockets, satellites, launch them etc. EVERY FIVE FUCKING YEARS" Well, I recently saw that Starlink is expecting to be able to handle at least 500,000 customers. At $100/month, 12 months per year, that's $600 million in revenue per year, or $3 billion for 5 years. $3 billion divided by 42,000 satellites is about $72,400 per satellite. Is that unrealistic? However, it looks to me if it has 42,000 satellites, it should be able to handle well over 500,000 customers. " And all that so that a few turds in 'rural US' can have 'high speed' arpanet. Of course, it's waaaay cheaper to use ground radios. So what's the actual purpose of this farce?" Why refer to "rural US"? The US reprsents around 5% of the world population. Sure, Starlink definitely has an advantage over (as-yet uninstalled) optical fiber. It would have been irresponsible for the Starlink management to not have estimated all this, long before the first rocket went up. Further, why should you care even if (arguably; I disagree) if a billionaire wastes money on a technological marvel? If it's economically practical, it will 'work' and change the world. If it isn't, perhaps the next attempt will be more affordable. " Also, if the pentagon puppet had his way, he would be the figurehead of a global arpanet monopoly. " Apparently, that's not going to happen. Amazon is going to implement their own system. "Now ask yourself who wants a global US military monopoly on 'satellite internet'? Is that somthing any half-sane half-decent person would want, let alone a 'cypherpunk'?" Since I've now corrected your misunderstanding about a "US military monopoly on 'satellite internet'" I will let you think of your own next objection. " so how come jim bell and 'grarpamp' are pushing for this kind of utter anti-freedom garbage? Well..." Me talking about it isn't "pushing". I believe we should learn about what they are planning, possibly to figure out how to implement systems that employ and extend it. And I don't agree it's "anti-freedom", either. I've already pointed out that an authoritarian government, like Cuba's, might be partially thwarted from obstructed the people's access to the Internet if the Starlink system were operating there. Future STARLINK Satellites? Much of the practicality of these networks could depend on how many customers they can service. While the use of microwave bands (aiming beams using an electronically-steered phased-array) is relatively efficient, the future satellites might involve implementation of a kind of lasers for communication, dramatically increasing the number of individual links that can be handled at one time.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:48:40 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 12, 2021, 04:06:31 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
" the pentagon puppet musk plans to put 42,000 satellites in orbit EVERY 5 YEARS. Yes, the satellites only work for 5 years and then they are literally burnt. So musk wants to literally burn whatever insane amount of stolen capital is needed to build rockets, satellites, launch them etc. EVERY FIVE FUCKING YEARS"
Well, I recently saw that Starlink is expecting to be able to handle at least 500,000 customers. At $100/month, 12 months per year, that's $600 million in revenue per year, or $3 billion for 5 years. $3 billion divided by 42,000 satellites is about $72,400 per satellite. Is that unrealistic?
you tell me. Oh wait. Yes, musk can't exist without government subsidies. Here, 900 millions stolen by musk and criminals like you https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/07/spacex-starlink-wins-nearly-900-million-in-f... plus https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/germany-readies-subsidies-s... And that's just a tiny bit. The musk turd is just a facade for NASA and the pentagon. Musk can launch satellites because he's the US military. His satellite launching 'operation' is fully subsdized by the military.
" And all that so that a few turds in 'rural US' can have 'high speed' arpanet. Of course, it's waaaay cheaper to use ground radios. So what's the actual purpose of this farce?"
Why refer to "rural US"?
because it's the only place where turds can waste $1200 per year on 'high speed' arpanet ($1200 of money they steal from the rest of the world).
The US reprsents around 5% of the world population.
right, but most of the world's population can't waste $1200 per year on an arpanet connection.
Further, why should you care even if (arguably; I disagree) if a billionaire wastes money on a technological marvel?
what technological marvel. You are insane.
If it's economically practical, it will 'work' and change the world.
change the world by adding more pentagon surveillance, which is what the project is all about and the reason why a US agent govt like you supports it.
" Also, if the pentagon puppet had his way, he would be the figurehead of a global arpanet monopoly. "
Apparently, that's not going to happen. Amazon is going to implement their own system.
LMAO!!! And you're pretending with a sraight face that amazon-NSA is not the same facade for the US military that musk is. Amazon names former NSA director to its board https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/10/tech/amazon-nsa-keith-alexander/index.htm... You're pretending that satellite arpanet fully controlled by the US govt via musk and eventually bezos is not a de facto US military monopoly. You are an incredibly dishonest piece of shit bell. Oh wait, you are just a US govt propaganda bot.
"Now ask yourself who wants a global US military monopoly on 'satellite internet'? Is that somthing any half-sane half-decent person would want, let alone a 'cypherpunk'?"
Since I've now corrected your misunderstanding about a "US military monopoly on 'satellite internet'" I will let you think of your own next objection.
You didn't correct anything son. But you illustrated in a magnificient way how corrupt you are.
" so how come jim bell and 'grarpamp' are pushing for this kind of utter anti-freedom garbage? Well..."
Me talking about it isn't "pushing".
Of course it is. You are lying about it in the most stupid and dishonest way possible.
I believe we should learn about what they are planning, possibly to figure out how to implement systems that employ and extend it. And I don't agree it's "anti-freedom", either. I've already pointed out that an authoritarian government, like Cuba's,
Tell me about your government. The child murdering psychos who pay you to post garbage on this list.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:48:40 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> vomited:
Well, I recently saw that Starlink is expecting to be able to handle at least 500,000 customers. At $100/month, 12 months per year, that's $600 million in revenue per year, or $3 billion for 5 years. $3 billion divided by 42,000 satellites is about $72,400 per satellite. Is that unrealistic?
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/12/spacex-starlink-satellites-cost-well-b... "SpaceX could already have $250,000 per Starlink satellite cost and $15 million per launch cost." It should be self-evident that the price of ordinary wired connections or even radio links on the ground is nothing compared with all that insanity. But then again, the purpose of this US military project 'supported' by US turds like jim bell is not about 'cheap arpanet' at all. so we have 1) insane price tag for the satellite. - destroyed after 5 years 2) insane price tag for launching it 3) insane amounts of capital to keep the whole scam going. Only a small portion of all that stolen money comes from the $100 per month some US turds in the middle of nowhere would pay.
participants (2)
-
jim bell -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0