more starlink garbage

jim bell jdb10987 at
Tue Jul 13 03:48:40 PDT 2021

 On Monday, July 12, 2021, 04:06:31 PM PDT, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 <punks at> 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.  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 4676 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list