Starlink has been so successful, it is facing a lot of competition in the next few years. Every major power wants their own, national starlink network.
Amazon Leo plans for 3,000 satellites in orbit, and is already launching satellites.
China's state-backed starlink competitor GuoWang is putting 13,000 satellites in orbit by 2030. They've already started launching satellites.
China's Qianfan plans 15,000 satellites by 2030.
AST SpaceMobile is building their own network.
The EU is building EU: IRIS², explicitly as a Starlink alternative.
Russia, after realizing how critical starlink is on the battlefield, is planning its own Rassvet network. They've already launched satellites.
Yeah I remember reading that what killed the space industry in the 90s-2000s other than the collapse of the USSR and cessation of great power competition was the massive move to digital communications, particularly satellite TV - which mean that a smaller number of satellites could serve the expected demand.
LEO satellites come down on their own in a few months/years. 100 tons of metal burning in the atmosphere seems a lot, but it's barely the total mass of meteorites falling in 24-48 hours, actually.
I wonder about the impact on our health of all the metals that will be present in the atmosphere after several months. For example, it is well known that lead in gasoline has increased crime.
100 tons is quite a lot of gpus. If they manage to solve such "minor" problems as powering and cooling them they could run for a decade or so without consuming or polluting. The methane burned to get mass into orbit is trivial - a 500MW powerplant burns that much in under a day.
Yeah, that response trivializes the massive burn that power plants perform each day.
When I worked in a midstream gas company, I recall a meeting when we were explaining the business to some new IT folk, and talking about the plants that process 100K barrels. One new guy in particular literally dropped his jaw and said, "you process 100K barrels of gas a year??" The room looked at him like he was insane and the woman running the meeting politely replied: "No, per day."
So acting as if "it burns less than a power plant" somehow means it is trivial is just a really odd take.
Besides, the methane burn is one piece of the puzzle. There is more to environmental impact than just methane.
The problem isn't GPUs the problem is cooling them.
Look into what percentage of the ISS by weight is radiators, look into how little power it can generate and radiate, and you'll see that space data centers is the shitcoin pitch of 2026.
Also they are not building them in 3D space with current tech. We clearly don't have it. Cars barely drive themselves in cities, they are decade behind building and maintaining a. datacenter in space.
Banning Starlink is inadequate and won't change anything. China is building their own larger version with 20,000+ satellites. Russia is building their own network. The EU is building their own network.
Starlink has been so successful, it is facing a lot of competition in the next few years. Every major power wants their own, national starlink network.
Amazon Leo plans for 3,000 satellites in orbit, and is already launching satellites.
China's state-backed starlink competitor GuoWang is putting 13,000 satellites in orbit by 2030. They've already started launching satellites.
China's Qianfan plans 15,000 satellites by 2030.
AST SpaceMobile is building their own network.
The EU is building EU: IRIS², explicitly as a Starlink alternative.
Russia, after realizing how critical starlink is on the battlefield, is planning its own Rassvet network. They've already launched satellites.
> Most people likely don’t think about how often they use satellite communications. But that Instagram post you made? You used a satellite.
This article seems to confuse Starlink with ordinary cellular communications
Let me fix your title:
SpaceX wants investors to think that they will be able to launch millions of satellites.
Yeah I remember reading that what killed the space industry in the 90s-2000s other than the collapse of the USSR and cessation of great power competition was the massive move to digital communications, particularly satellite TV - which mean that a smaller number of satellites could serve the expected demand.
How long until they turn a constellation into a giant LED billboard, showing commercials for Tesla?
Isn't that a scene in The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy?
ASAP.
https://futurism.com/russian-scientists-huge-advertisements-...
> ... data centres that won’t have an environmental impact here on Earth.
Really? I wonder how they are going to get them up there without rocket launches?
And getting them down. Or allowing them to come down on their own... I doubt that is entirely environmental impact free.
LEO satellites come down on their own in a few months/years. 100 tons of metal burning in the atmosphere seems a lot, but it's barely the total mass of meteorites falling in 24-48 hours, actually.
I wonder about the impact on our health of all the metals that will be present in the atmosphere after several months. For example, it is well known that lead in gasoline has increased crime.
100 tons is quite a lot of gpus. If they manage to solve such "minor" problems as powering and cooling them they could run for a decade or so without consuming or polluting. The methane burned to get mass into orbit is trivial - a 500MW powerplant burns that much in under a day.
Yeah, that response trivializes the massive burn that power plants perform each day.
When I worked in a midstream gas company, I recall a meeting when we were explaining the business to some new IT folk, and talking about the plants that process 100K barrels. One new guy in particular literally dropped his jaw and said, "you process 100K barrels of gas a year??" The room looked at him like he was insane and the woman running the meeting politely replied: "No, per day."
So acting as if "it burns less than a power plant" somehow means it is trivial is just a really odd take.
Besides, the methane burn is one piece of the puzzle. There is more to environmental impact than just methane.
Yes it is trivial when humanity is burning 100 million barrels of oil per day and 300 tons of coal per second and 100 tons of natural gas per second.
The problem isn't GPUs the problem is cooling them.
Look into what percentage of the ISS by weight is radiators, look into how little power it can generate and radiate, and you'll see that space data centers is the shitcoin pitch of 2026.
Also they are not building them in 3D space with current tech. We clearly don't have it. Cars barely drive themselves in cities, they are decade behind building and maintaining a. datacenter in space.
There is an upside: this may be the shortest route to eliminating any future launches:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome
Sorry Buck Rogers fan bois, should have left this fantasy in the 1950s...
Should be banned. These companies are destroying a piece of the environment that belongs to all of us - the night sky.
Let's ban ads too, while we're at it.
Along that line people should look into BUG ratings [1] for outdoor lighting, especially city operated lights. [1]
[1] - https://www.landscapeforms.com/ideas/bug-rating-system-101
Banning Starlink is inadequate and won't change anything. China is building their own larger version with 20,000+ satellites. Russia is building their own network. The EU is building their own network.
bUt cHinA!
Oh ffs ... how is the homebrew laser defense industry coming along?
Spec Priority: ability to attach said laser defense instrument to home telescope ... and enable user to blast those madafakkas out of the sky.