Maybe it's just me, but the heart of going camping, adventuring, out into the wild, going to the beach, etc (essentially, getting away from it all), seems in nearly direct opposition to having internet at every single one of these places.
I often work from campsites. I no longer have to rely on if there is 4/5G signal, and can borrow a family members Mini (and pay for a month of service).
That means I can now head out on Wednesday after work, drive 3-5 hours to the middle of no-where, and work Thursday and Friday. But each of those days, I am able to be done working and then at a camping site with my family. Go on hikes, fish, swim, etc.
So now my whole family can enjoy being in the wild, and I don't have to burn up vacation days. And we don't have to try to jam it all into a weekend were you feel like your just travelling the whole time.
Side note.. Having no signal on the west coast can actually be extremely dangerous, with how fast some wild-fires have spread. You can have one 10 miles away and not know it with the wind blowing the other way, and if it shifts direction, you can have a very limited time and path to get away.
Being able to check tools like WatchDuty and weather reports from the middle of nowhere is a safety feature.
Long before Starlink I actually tried something similar: book a hotel or airbnb in a place with good natural beauty. Work remote for the day, log off promptly at 5pm and then go on a hike or bike ride. I felt that I did not enjoy it at all. Work is emotionally draining enough that the quality of an after-work hike is far below a hike on a weekend. I stopped doing that.
Better than not, I guess. But it would better still to have more vacation days (if you're American, then most of the world probably has twice as many as you do)
I do agree when comparing developed wealthy nations the US ranks poorly on average vacation days per worker.
But on a global standard across all peoples, even those in the informal economies? US probably works out better.
Not that being a bit better off than subsistence farmers in extreme poverty is a high standard to cross, it's still a pretty low bar. I'd still recommend scoping your claims accurately.
A lot of folks here making arguments for safety and convenience, but ultimately for me the issue is around what I might call "plausibility of unreachableness": basically whether being genuinely offline and unreachable is normal and socially expected when you're doing certain activities, the number of which has dwindled over time.
It's obviously possible to say "I'm going to be unreachable", but people don't really like that, and it becomes a push-pull unless you're doing something where you genuinely have no service or connection. For a long time, being on an airplane allowed this sort of ability to disconnect: even if there were $5/minute in-seat phones, nobody reasonably expected to be able to reach you if you said you'd be on a flight. A few hours where you could fully tune out the noise of the world, no questions asked.
Wilderness backpacking trips have maintained this sort of unreachableness fairly well–I've had a Garmin inReach for years, and used it to keep family apprised of our movements, and once to coordinate a fairly serious situation where a large wildfire kicked up near our exit, but ultimately the slow messaging and short length limits prevent any real communication. Cell phones have also started getting satellite functionality, but it doesn't work very well, yet, at least as far as I've seen.
I see this march towards internet everywhere all the time as ultimately leading to expectations of connectivity, even in the most remote places–then "will you have made camp by 6pm on Tuesday? If so can you join this quick call?" becomes a real question people feel entitled to ask, notifications start coming through when you turn it on to check the weather, "I'm going back to my tent to check a few emails before bed" might be something you hear around the campfire...
I go truck camping and do a lot of day trips to places where there probably will never be traditional cell phone service. I was against taking a starlink out for a while, but on a couple of weeklong trips over the last couple of years I started to dread my phone coming back online as I was driving out of the woods and all the attendant notificiations. For better or worse I would rather get online and go through all my texts and any emergency work stuff once a day than have to sift through 7 days of catching up on context. It's easy to say "just don't catch up" but it's difficult in practice.
I spend enough time in these places that I'm happy with the balance. I don't run the dish mounted all the time. I don't go out to watch movies, though that could be nice when you are north of the 45th in winter and nights feel like they are 16 hours long. Also it's nice if you forgot to check if your offline maps are still downloaded.
You need to take care of yourself and learn to switch off man. It's quite liberating to tell your colleagues "my laptop is going in the closet for 2 weeks and I'm uninstalling teams from my phone." If my team cannot survive without me for a week, then we have a huge problem.
When I worked remotely, I liked going camping for weeks at a time during the summer and working from the campsite. At the time all I had available to me was shitty mobile data, which made it challenging but not impossible. Starlink would have been a godsend.
The other day I sat on a bench at sunset at Albany Bulb and watched as San Francisco slowly turned on the lights and day gave way to night. After some photography and quiet moments with the view, I took a few minutes to test the latest rev of my mobile webapp. Then I used voice mode to give feedback to my coding agent, and it started working up fixes. I looked up from the phone and was struck with the beauty of the view once again.
Products like Apple Vision Pro promised working on productivity apps with beautiful views of Yosemite displayed behind the virtual computer screens. But now with a cell phone and voice mode (I don’t have starlink but I have enjoyed it in the past), I can work on my app while I’m taking a break in the middle of a bike ride.
I often say I love the work that I do but I don’t like being at the computer. Specifically that the best work I’ve done is sitting at a desktop in one place for hours at a day for years on end. To me, things like voice mode on mobile is a revelation. I long dreamed of doing productive work on the go, and this is a way I can do that. I’m not sure I want starlink personally, but I can certainly see the appeal of setting up at a park and getting a few hours of work done before putting it all away and doing a hike to the summit.
A co-worker of mine is traveling to parks all around the country and basically camping full-time. StarLink on his fifth wheel allows him to work during business hours and then walk off into a forest at 5pm.
This is a great example. As long as you have internet you can put outside, this is very useful.
Of course, a mobile hotspot will work both indoors and outdoors, but not have the Coverage.
There's no shortage of people that work in extremely remote areas that are effectively isolated or cut off or Reliant on Wi-Fi wherever they can find it in between cellular covers that might be spotty at best.
We have to remember that there's more land in the world that people don't heavily occupy compared to the land where people do heavily occupy it.
It’s the opposite for me and my family, but more so because of safety. I bought my mom a Starlink mini and portable battery because she does a lot of road trips and camping in remote places. Many times there’s no cell reception. If she needed to look anything up or communicate with anyone in those places, there are limited options.
Yes there’s satphones, but then might as well have the entire internet for the same price or less. The $10/mo Starlink standby plan seems well worth it for insurance
Yea also, a few years ago I traveled around the entire US with a 4g hotspot and had service in nearly every place I visited, even in many remote national parks. With 5g being significantly faster than starlink, it does seem that this is an incredibly niche product.
Cell service requires radio connectivity to a cell tower, which depends on distance and local terrain. It's quite common to have connectivity on a ridge or mountaintop, but lose it in a valley. Starlink works as long as you can see the sky.
Also 5g speeds in a suburban or urban area are significantly different from the wilderness. I have some property an hour drive from Portland. While some people can get a signal and their phone says "5G", the distance to the cell towers is great enough that actual connectivity is extremely spotty. It takes minutes to download a single photo. Starlink is much more consistent. You actually get better performance if you're farther from civilization.
National parks in the US are pretty well developed, and often crowded. You and I may just travel differently; my preferred camp sites are usually far away from cell coverage.
Indeed. There's plenty of National Forests (not National Parks) with near zero cell service, and often even less once you start venturing into undeveloped BLM land.
Me too. But Starlink definitely makes our group more confident when we go camping deep in the forest or mountain. If you are discipline enough to just treat it as a much more capable emergency satellite phone then it's a great addition to your camping kit.
To me, it's nice to know if you had to connect and get a message out you can. There's also the drive out there and the drive back which can be boring for a passenger with no signal.
I found disconnection to be a factor creating hesitation to spend a weekend at a campground out in the north woods. The things I do online are a big part of who I am, and being able to do those things and also go paddling / hiking in the same weekend is wonderful. I don’t think people should worry about the purity of their nature experiences. If someone wants to go full bushcraft, or if they want to blog from a canoe, I wish them the most out of whatever experience they seek. Except generators, I hope they all blow a head gasket.
If you live close to nature, but with an Internet connection, isn't that closer to the heart than living far from nature and going camping every once in a while with no connection?
Not really, if the goals is to maximise getting away, being able to be productive _wile_ on location means you can go, work a bit there, and then be on the trail immediately, you can spend much more time in the mountains than otherwise.
Plus actually working in a nice place like that is in itself a luxury worth the price.
If only this incredible technical achievement could not be linked to such a toxic individual… eh one can only dream, maybe greatness requires a bit of madness.
I saw a video recently about a silicon valley tech bro who goes hiking with a starlink receiver on his backpack so that he can prompt his agents while he hikes and never lose a single second of vibe coding productivity. It made me want to throw my laptop out of the window.
While I generally agree, there is something magical/cool about being in remote wilderness without any signs of civilization, and writing code (or working on somethi technical) in that setting.
I agree. I carry only two things for off-grid camping:
1. My iPhone, which has exactly the right amount of satellite communication for me: SOS and simple two-way texting, only when I actively point it at the right place in the sky, and
2. Aviation band handheld radio as a true last resort. Have one anyway as a pilot, and I figure it's unlikely I'll go more than a few hours without seeing some airliner I can talk to. Illegal to use those bands for this? Technically. Am I worried about the FCC putting me in jail if I'm down to my last fallback to get a critical message out? Nope.
Amazing mindset, so you’d rather risk distracting a pilot and causing an accident than buy a PLB or other emergency beacon for a few hundred bucks as a backup for your phone?
Au contraire, if you are in general aviation, the last thing you want is to be caught with no radio contact whatsoever while you are stranded. Communication keeps you alive.
1. Sometimes I'm forced to work on weekends or risk getting PIP and I'd rather do it on a mountain or the beach. I hate to live this way and I'd rather work slower and enjoy nature but I'm not yet financially free, and my rent, food, and cardiac care are at the mercy of my fucking manager and HR. When I have a few million in the bank I can tell them to f off and spend time in nature on the weekends without worrying about the bills.
2. I do a lot of winter astrophotography and a lot of that time is spent waiting in the car for 5 hours in a no-reception area. Usually I read books, but hey, maybe this might mean that I can get more work done and reduce my risk of PIP.
3. Starlink might come in handy if there is a natural disaster, since it doesn't depend on local infrastructure.
It's cool but 4.5 hours feels low for what you'd want. Between sometimes not fully charged, degradation, not wanting to fully deplete the battery your average comfortable use-time is going to be more like 2.5-3 hours. A burst of work but an entire half day of work is pushing it. It also competes with your phone hotspot, and is more of an advantage where you dont have cell coverage (more remote - where you are more sensitive to lower battery life because you cant recharge as easily).
Let me reiterate. I actually think this is awesome. Starlink is awesome. I just think for any product you need to discount the stated battery life significantly.
I want so badly for starlink to offer a sensible well priced self-service B2B offering with fleet management. Any kind of fixed, high bandwidth IoT device that currently has a SIM card could easily use a starlink. As it stands SMBs who want this have to screw around with residential starlink and live in fear that they’ll get banned.
Not sure if this would cover the use cases you're thinking of, but they have significantly improved management for business customers in the past year or so.
Last year, you couldn't get API access at all unless you went through one of their distributors or spent $1M+/year on Starlink, but now you can use the API [0] as a normal business customer. It's got pretty good telemetry and management features.
And it seems to have a normal USB-C port now! Excellent, having to order that old weird cable of theirs was a pain, especially when one broke out in the wild.
Excited to see how the huge cottage industry of people trying to package minis into weapons systems react to this. It looks like it'll be slightly more of a pain in the ass than the previous version but maybe Elon threw the MIC a bone and made them disassemble-able
Yes, this is really a thing, yes, I'm being sarcastic.
Distance alone isn’t the real issue (newer Pixel phones can talk to GEO, which is 100 times farther out than Starlink in LEO!), bandwidth over distance is.
Amazon is working on their own constellation (which they renamed LEO for some reason); it's looking like it will have some availability ~next year. There are lots of others (Qianfan, OneWeb, AST SpaceMobile) somewhere along in development/deployment but none of those seem likely to offer consumer internet any time soon.
Funny how everyone said Starlink would fail, that it couldn't be done. Elon took the risk and it's so successful that you want to reward someone else for achieving it.
I think the other poster just does not want to support the dude (take your pick of reasons); that's the end of the story and that's fine; you don't need to invent stories around them just to get yourself mad.
I do not remember anyone saying Starlink would fail.
I really really despite Elon Musk for plenty of things but i don't think Space-X is not successful, i just think its not worth its share price.
But i'm for sure not liking that one person can just decide to put stuff into our space and disrupt research and my view without paying for it somehow.
And the biggest issue ish Elon Musks behaviour: he is for sure no one who would take something like atmospheric poisening serious until its too late or someone forced him to do so.
Did they? I don't recall any significant voices saying it couldn't be done. Mostly doubts about the commercial and financial viability, but that comes with every venture not just Elon's.
They sure did. They said it wasn't possible/economically feasible to launch that many times. Reusability still wasn't a thing, and people here said that wasn't possible as well. They said even 600 sats would be too many. That everyone that had tried satellite constellations before had gone bankrupt, which was true. The deck was stacked against SpaceX. Everyone thought Elon was lying as usual. That he was trying to pump up the valuation for false promises.
Hindsight is now 20/20 that Starlink is a huge success. I guess all you guys forgot and not think that the success of Starlink was obvious all along. Bitcoin and TypeScript are also things I remember HN being dismissive of at first that have both been very successful since.
Whether people want to do business with Elon Musk seems entirely separate from whether some people in the past were able to correctly predict the success of Starlink.
Who said it couldn't be done? I think the confusion has been over how viable of a business it would be which is a surprise. Also Elon has doubled down on being reprehensible.
Maybe it's just me, but the heart of going camping, adventuring, out into the wild, going to the beach, etc (essentially, getting away from it all), seems in nearly direct opposition to having internet at every single one of these places.
I often work from campsites. I no longer have to rely on if there is 4/5G signal, and can borrow a family members Mini (and pay for a month of service).
That means I can now head out on Wednesday after work, drive 3-5 hours to the middle of no-where, and work Thursday and Friday. But each of those days, I am able to be done working and then at a camping site with my family. Go on hikes, fish, swim, etc.
So now my whole family can enjoy being in the wild, and I don't have to burn up vacation days. And we don't have to try to jam it all into a weekend were you feel like your just travelling the whole time.
Side note.. Having no signal on the west coast can actually be extremely dangerous, with how fast some wild-fires have spread. You can have one 10 miles away and not know it with the wind blowing the other way, and if it shifts direction, you can have a very limited time and path to get away.
Being able to check tools like WatchDuty and weather reports from the middle of nowhere is a safety feature.
Long before Starlink I actually tried something similar: book a hotel or airbnb in a place with good natural beauty. Work remote for the day, log off promptly at 5pm and then go on a hike or bike ride. I felt that I did not enjoy it at all. Work is emotionally draining enough that the quality of an after-work hike is far below a hike on a weekend. I stopped doing that.
Thats a good observation - the capacity to appreciate something is probably as important as just being (in this case) in a beautiful space.
You can still go on hikes on the weekend
Better than not, I guess. But it would better still to have more vacation days (if you're American, then most of the world probably has twice as many as you do)
I do agree when comparing developed wealthy nations the US ranks poorly on average vacation days per worker.
But on a global standard across all peoples, even those in the informal economies? US probably works out better.
Not that being a bit better off than subsistence farmers in extreme poverty is a high standard to cross, it's still a pretty low bar. I'd still recommend scoping your claims accurately.
That explains European economic growth vs the US over the last decade.
Agree, they've got their priorities straight over in Europe.
A lot of folks here making arguments for safety and convenience, but ultimately for me the issue is around what I might call "plausibility of unreachableness": basically whether being genuinely offline and unreachable is normal and socially expected when you're doing certain activities, the number of which has dwindled over time.
It's obviously possible to say "I'm going to be unreachable", but people don't really like that, and it becomes a push-pull unless you're doing something where you genuinely have no service or connection. For a long time, being on an airplane allowed this sort of ability to disconnect: even if there were $5/minute in-seat phones, nobody reasonably expected to be able to reach you if you said you'd be on a flight. A few hours where you could fully tune out the noise of the world, no questions asked.
Wilderness backpacking trips have maintained this sort of unreachableness fairly well–I've had a Garmin inReach for years, and used it to keep family apprised of our movements, and once to coordinate a fairly serious situation where a large wildfire kicked up near our exit, but ultimately the slow messaging and short length limits prevent any real communication. Cell phones have also started getting satellite functionality, but it doesn't work very well, yet, at least as far as I've seen.
I see this march towards internet everywhere all the time as ultimately leading to expectations of connectivity, even in the most remote places–then "will you have made camp by 6pm on Tuesday? If so can you join this quick call?" becomes a real question people feel entitled to ask, notifications start coming through when you turn it on to check the weather, "I'm going back to my tent to check a few emails before bed" might be something you hear around the campfire...
I go truck camping and do a lot of day trips to places where there probably will never be traditional cell phone service. I was against taking a starlink out for a while, but on a couple of weeklong trips over the last couple of years I started to dread my phone coming back online as I was driving out of the woods and all the attendant notificiations. For better or worse I would rather get online and go through all my texts and any emergency work stuff once a day than have to sift through 7 days of catching up on context. It's easy to say "just don't catch up" but it's difficult in practice.
I spend enough time in these places that I'm happy with the balance. I don't run the dish mounted all the time. I don't go out to watch movies, though that could be nice when you are north of the 45th in winter and nights feel like they are 16 hours long. Also it's nice if you forgot to check if your offline maps are still downloaded.
You need to take care of yourself and learn to switch off man. It's quite liberating to tell your colleagues "my laptop is going in the closet for 2 weeks and I'm uninstalling teams from my phone." If my team cannot survive without me for a week, then we have a huge problem.
This is a great example. There's nothing wrong with having connectivity. This skill is just using it when you need to.
Even if we think about trackers that people will wear when going hiking and things like that for help, they have their utility in their place.
I would argue that it is still a different feeling if you actually away from society and out there vs. just around the corner in the big garden.
> north of the 45th in winter and nights feel like they are 16 hours long.
Cries in Ireland
When I worked remotely, I liked going camping for weeks at a time during the summer and working from the campsite. At the time all I had available to me was shitty mobile data, which made it challenging but not impossible. Starlink would have been a godsend.
The other day I sat on a bench at sunset at Albany Bulb and watched as San Francisco slowly turned on the lights and day gave way to night. After some photography and quiet moments with the view, I took a few minutes to test the latest rev of my mobile webapp. Then I used voice mode to give feedback to my coding agent, and it started working up fixes. I looked up from the phone and was struck with the beauty of the view once again.
Products like Apple Vision Pro promised working on productivity apps with beautiful views of Yosemite displayed behind the virtual computer screens. But now with a cell phone and voice mode (I don’t have starlink but I have enjoyed it in the past), I can work on my app while I’m taking a break in the middle of a bike ride.
I often say I love the work that I do but I don’t like being at the computer. Specifically that the best work I’ve done is sitting at a desktop in one place for hours at a day for years on end. To me, things like voice mode on mobile is a revelation. I long dreamed of doing productive work on the go, and this is a way I can do that. I’m not sure I want starlink personally, but I can certainly see the appeal of setting up at a park and getting a few hours of work done before putting it all away and doing a hike to the summit.
A co-worker of mine is traveling to parks all around the country and basically camping full-time. StarLink on his fifth wheel allows him to work during business hours and then walk off into a forest at 5pm.
This is a great example. As long as you have internet you can put outside, this is very useful.
Of course, a mobile hotspot will work both indoors and outdoors, but not have the Coverage.
There's no shortage of people that work in extremely remote areas that are effectively isolated or cut off or Reliant on Wi-Fi wherever they can find it in between cellular covers that might be spotty at best.
We have to remember that there's more land in the world that people don't heavily occupy compared to the land where people do heavily occupy it.
The heart of camping is being stranded. Knowing that if you had an emergency there'd be no way to get help. Starlink ruins that.
It’s the opposite for me and my family, but more so because of safety. I bought my mom a Starlink mini and portable battery because she does a lot of road trips and camping in remote places. Many times there’s no cell reception. If she needed to look anything up or communicate with anyone in those places, there are limited options.
Yes there’s satphones, but then might as well have the entire internet for the same price or less. The $10/mo Starlink standby plan seems well worth it for insurance
Why are you focusing on camping though?
Yea also, a few years ago I traveled around the entire US with a 4g hotspot and had service in nearly every place I visited, even in many remote national parks. With 5g being significantly faster than starlink, it does seem that this is an incredibly niche product.
Cell service requires radio connectivity to a cell tower, which depends on distance and local terrain. It's quite common to have connectivity on a ridge or mountaintop, but lose it in a valley. Starlink works as long as you can see the sky.
Also 5g speeds in a suburban or urban area are significantly different from the wilderness. I have some property an hour drive from Portland. While some people can get a signal and their phone says "5G", the distance to the cell towers is great enough that actual connectivity is extremely spotty. It takes minutes to download a single photo. Starlink is much more consistent. You actually get better performance if you're farther from civilization.
National parks in the US are pretty well developed, and often crowded. You and I may just travel differently; my preferred camp sites are usually far away from cell coverage.
Indeed. There's plenty of National Forests (not National Parks) with near zero cell service, and often even less once you start venturing into undeveloped BLM land.
Me too. But Starlink definitely makes our group more confident when we go camping deep in the forest or mountain. If you are discipline enough to just treat it as a much more capable emergency satellite phone then it's a great addition to your camping kit.
To me, it's nice to know if you had to connect and get a message out you can. There's also the drive out there and the drive back which can be boring for a passenger with no signal.
God forbid anyone should be bored in this day and age. Thank you Starlink!
Then simply don't use it. It doesn't affect you at all then right?
I found disconnection to be a factor creating hesitation to spend a weekend at a campground out in the north woods. The things I do online are a big part of who I am, and being able to do those things and also go paddling / hiking in the same weekend is wonderful. I don’t think people should worry about the purity of their nature experiences. If someone wants to go full bushcraft, or if they want to blog from a canoe, I wish them the most out of whatever experience they seek. Except generators, I hope they all blow a head gasket.
Sometimes it's not just about having internet at all the places in just the use cases that you can think of or that I can think of.
Connectivity, when and where it's useful, it can be really extremely helpful. [BLANK_AUDIO]
If you live close to nature, but with an Internet connection, isn't that closer to the heart than living far from nature and going camping every once in a while with no connection?
Not really, if the goals is to maximise getting away, being able to be productive _wile_ on location means you can go, work a bit there, and then be on the trail immediately, you can spend much more time in the mountains than otherwise.
Plus actually working in a nice place like that is in itself a luxury worth the price.
If only this incredible technical achievement could not be linked to such a toxic individual… eh one can only dream, maybe greatness requires a bit of madness.
I saw a video recently about a silicon valley tech bro who goes hiking with a starlink receiver on his backpack so that he can prompt his agents while he hikes and never lose a single second of vibe coding productivity. It made me want to throw my laptop out of the window.
If they're hiking during work hours, good on them.
If they're working outside of their 9-5, shame on them.
I’m pretty sure even this v2 is optional to own/bring/use.
While I generally agree, there is something magical/cool about being in remote wilderness without any signs of civilization, and writing code (or working on somethi technical) in that setting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamping
I agree. I carry only two things for off-grid camping:
1. My iPhone, which has exactly the right amount of satellite communication for me: SOS and simple two-way texting, only when I actively point it at the right place in the sky, and
2. Aviation band handheld radio as a true last resort. Have one anyway as a pilot, and I figure it's unlikely I'll go more than a few hours without seeing some airliner I can talk to. Illegal to use those bands for this? Technically. Am I worried about the FCC putting me in jail if I'm down to my last fallback to get a critical message out? Nope.
Amazing mindset, so you’d rather risk distracting a pilot and causing an accident than buy a PLB or other emergency beacon for a few hundred bucks as a backup for your phone?
Au contraire, if you are in general aviation, the last thing you want is to be caught with no radio contact whatsoever while you are stranded. Communication keeps you alive.
To each is own.
1. Sometimes I'm forced to work on weekends or risk getting PIP and I'd rather do it on a mountain or the beach. I hate to live this way and I'd rather work slower and enjoy nature but I'm not yet financially free, and my rent, food, and cardiac care are at the mercy of my fucking manager and HR. When I have a few million in the bank I can tell them to f off and spend time in nature on the weekends without worrying about the bills.
2. I do a lot of winter astrophotography and a lot of that time is spent waiting in the car for 5 hours in a no-reception area. Usually I read books, but hey, maybe this might mean that I can get more work done and reduce my risk of PIP.
3. Starlink might come in handy if there is a natural disaster, since it doesn't depend on local infrastructure.
Starlink Mini improved the power consumption a lot. Does Starlink Mini 2 improve things further? The page lacks specs.
I read elsewhere the battery has 71Wh and lasts 4.5h. That's 15.77W/h if it indeed uses 100% of the battery's capacity.
It's cool but 4.5 hours feels low for what you'd want. Between sometimes not fully charged, degradation, not wanting to fully deplete the battery your average comfortable use-time is going to be more like 2.5-3 hours. A burst of work but an entire half day of work is pushing it. It also competes with your phone hotspot, and is more of an advantage where you dont have cell coverage (more remote - where you are more sensitive to lower battery life because you cant recharge as easily).
Let me reiterate. I actually think this is awesome. Starlink is awesome. I just think for any product you need to discount the stated battery life significantly.
The specs say Mini 2 works with a 60W power brick. Mini 1 requires a 100W source. So at the very least, the peak draw is better.
I want so badly for starlink to offer a sensible well priced self-service B2B offering with fleet management. Any kind of fixed, high bandwidth IoT device that currently has a SIM card could easily use a starlink. As it stands SMBs who want this have to screw around with residential starlink and live in fear that they’ll get banned.
Not sure if this would cover the use cases you're thinking of, but they have significantly improved management for business customers in the past year or so.
Last year, you couldn't get API access at all unless you went through one of their distributors or spent $1M+/year on Starlink, but now you can use the API [0] as a normal business customer. It's got pretty good telemetry and management features.
[0] https://starlink.readme.io/docs/getting-started
https://starlink.com/business ?
Funnily enough, that's on Amazon's LEO feature roadmap.
That's awesome, imagine taking it with you on a Cruise
And it seems to have a normal USB-C port now! Excellent, having to order that old weird cable of theirs was a pain, especially when one broke out in the wild.
Excited to see how the huge cottage industry of people trying to package minis into weapons systems react to this. It looks like it'll be slightly more of a pain in the ass than the previous version but maybe Elon threw the MIC a bone and made them disassemble-able
Yes, this is really a thing, yes, I'm being sarcastic.
This is great for national park. I've been looking for a portable network device that can be attached in my car for a long time.
I have starlink on my campervan, it is so great for this. Being able to grab hiking maps in the middle of nowhere is awesome!
4.5 hours on battery surprised me - cool that it's built in, but yeah these things are power hungry. 25-35W kinda surprised me.
I guess it makes sense, space is a long way away after all...
Distance alone isn’t the real issue (newer Pixel phones can talk to GEO, which is 100 times farther out than Starlink in LEO!), bandwidth over distance is.
They have to be able to actively melt snow too, which makes the draw much higher.
That part is almost certainly optional on the Mini.
Can we have a non-Elon backed version of this? Is there enough space in lower orbit for that?
Amazon is actively building a competing constellation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Leo
They have about 400 satellites already in orbit. It's not available for public sale yet but I believe they're close.
Amazon is working on their own constellation (which they renamed LEO for some reason); it's looking like it will have some availability ~next year. There are lots of others (Qianfan, OneWeb, AST SpaceMobile) somewhere along in development/deployment but none of those seem likely to offer consumer internet any time soon.
Funny how everyone said Starlink would fail, that it couldn't be done. Elon took the risk and it's so successful that you want to reward someone else for achieving it.
I think the other poster just does not want to support the dude (take your pick of reasons); that's the end of the story and that's fine; you don't need to invent stories around them just to get yourself mad.
Oh in that case there are lots of options, such as Viasat and Hughesnet.
I do not remember anyone saying Starlink would fail.
I really really despite Elon Musk for plenty of things but i don't think Space-X is not successful, i just think its not worth its share price.
But i'm for sure not liking that one person can just decide to put stuff into our space and disrupt research and my view without paying for it somehow.
And the biggest issue ish Elon Musks behaviour: he is for sure no one who would take something like atmospheric poisening serious until its too late or someone forced him to do so.
Did they? I don't recall any significant voices saying it couldn't be done. Mostly doubts about the commercial and financial viability, but that comes with every venture not just Elon's.
They sure did. They said it wasn't possible/economically feasible to launch that many times. Reusability still wasn't a thing, and people here said that wasn't possible as well. They said even 600 sats would be too many. That everyone that had tried satellite constellations before had gone bankrupt, which was true. The deck was stacked against SpaceX. Everyone thought Elon was lying as usual. That he was trying to pump up the valuation for false promises.
Hindsight is now 20/20 that Starlink is a huge success. I guess all you guys forgot and not think that the success of Starlink was obvious all along. Bitcoin and TypeScript are also things I remember HN being dismissive of at first that have both been very successful since.
Whether people want to do business with Elon Musk seems entirely separate from whether some people in the past were able to correctly predict the success of Starlink.
Who said it couldn't be done? I think the confusion has been over how viable of a business it would be which is a surprise. Also Elon has doubled down on being reprehensible.
Ask Claude to build one for you for free.
I think the non-Elon version is called traditional infrastructure + 5G towers.