Yes, they will de-orbit when they are due for replacement.
GJC
1879 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Jun 2008
That is, of course, the ideal solution, and I have no doubt that SpaceX and others will be looking to sell such links to corporates with deep pockets.
However, going up to a satellite from the UK, around the planet by frickin' lasers, then down to a ground station in New York for onward transmission to a local business will also shave some milliseconds off the latency.
GJC
Both Blue Origin and SpaceX are working towards renewable fuel. Blue Origin uses hydrogen, SpaceX are using methane (that will be) created from atmospheric CO2 and water in the Starship engines, which I'm guessing will find their way into the Falcon boosters before long.
Both have reusable boosters, so that's not a huge concern either.
But even if that weren't the case, rocket launches have a surprising low GHG footprint. From memory, a Falcon 9 launch is the same footprint as a single one-way flight from London to New York.
GJC
You will still be able to see the Milky Way perfectly well, everywhere you can now see it. LEO satellites are visible to the naked eye under certain circumstances, but they don't really intrude on the night sky to visual observers.
It's long-exposure telescope photos that they screw up.
GJC
Back when I was involved in deskside stuff, there were broadly two types of company. Some bought absolute entry-level, and refreshed every three years, others bought high-mid-range, and refreshed every five years.
As far as I could tell, the two looked to be about equal in terms of cost and utility to the users.
GJC
I've had Starlink running here for a few months. You're going to love it.
I've not done proper measurements, but a quick eye-balling of the electricity bills and smart meter data looks to me like the average consumption over time is less than 100w. I can't detect significant difference in my bills, which a solid continuous 100w should have increased by a good 10%.
GJC
I would not be arrogant enough to state that I know the motivations behind those companies. The stated aim is to make the human race multi-planetary, although Tesla isn't really much of a part of that plan.
That's rather different to putting a tin can into orbit so you can declare the tax location of your Earth-bound companies as "not in your jurisdiction, buddy".
I have no doubt that there will be plenty of tax wrinkles to work out if we ever do get two full communities of meatsacks on two different planets, mind you.
GJC
Figures, please? All reports I have read don't actually state how much profit was made, they instead choose to quote turnover. Corporation Tax is levied on profit, not turnover, but that apparently doesn't matter to journalists.
From the figures I saw, Amazon appear to be running at about 10% net profit, which sounds about right for the retail side.
GJC
That is, in fact *exactly* what Starlink gives. They do supply a router as well, but I threw that into the network spares box and plugged the "dish" straight into the back of my pfSense firewall.
We've not had a landline here for, oh, about 8 years, I think?
GJC
You're quite a long way out on Starlink's bandwidth. I've just run a test and got 207Mbps down, 37Mbps up (and 24ms latency, which is nice). I've seen speeds up to 350Mbps down, and 60Mbps up, but not both at the same time.
It is, I have to say, a very, very nice system. We did have one of the original bi-directional systems using a geostationary satellite, and the bandwidth was astonishing for the time (14Mbps in a age of 128Kbps from ISDN, from memory) but the latency was also astonishing, at over a second. Quite usable for web browsing, as they had an intelligent proxy that bundled up the whole page and squirted it to the user in one big burst, overcoming some of the HTTP latency sensitivity. Telnet sessions were hilarious, though.
GJC
New Shepard burns hydrogen. No carbon footprint at all.
SpaceX's Starship is burning methane, specifically so they can manufacture it on-site from the atmosphere, using electricity from renewal sources. No carbon footprint at all.
Surprising though it may be, these guys have thought about this stuff.
GJC
Yup, all of that, and more.
I've never understood why people get so wound up about an OS. It is what it is, it works, and it works better than the alternatives (FTAOD, I don't see MacOS and Windows as direct competitors, given the vertical integration Apple have enforced down the years - two very different approaches, of which the Microsoft approach suits me better).
<shrug> I can't help coming to the conclusion that a lot of this is simply about badly shaved apes allowing their tribal subconscious to rule their more rational side.
GJC
That's your choice to make, knock yourself out. But the choice should be made on the basis of actual real facts, rather than rumour and falsehood, yes?
Me, I run a whole range of OSs, for a whole range of tasks. Windows on the desktop, various flavours of Linux and OpenBSD for server and network stuff, VMware hypervisor underpinning a lot of them, Android on phones and tablets. I think there's a couple of VMS machines in the loft, but that's ancient history. It's all good.
GJC
1) You don't need a working Internet connection at all times, only when you are initially installing Windows. It works perfectly well off-line with a Microsoft account, even if your files are stored on OneDrive (they can be cached locally and will sync when you next connect);
2) You don't need to give Microsoft anything other than a valid email address to set up a Microsoft account. And that email address can be dedicated purely for use with a single PC if you like.
GJC
> this is going to slow down take up massively
It occurred to me this morning that perhaps something Microsoft learned from Windows 10 was that a slower take-up can be beneficial for them. Windows 10 as it exists today is very different to the launched version five years ago, it has evolved and changed as the population has grown. And today, they have 1.3 billion live instances, which isn't too shabby.
I wonder if perhaps this has been seen as a good experience for Microsoft?
GJC
We had lunar rovers in 1971. You can bet that some form of light utility vehicle will be in the very first cargo to be set to Mars.
I mean, sure, the distances will still be limited. But that's the least of the problems to be overcome, really.
Also, 24 hours? They can live on board ship after landing for weeks, if necessary.
GJC
I can't speak for our colonial cousins, but on MoD sites in the UK it's very common to have armed guards requesting that one put any mobile devices, memory sticks, or digital media of any sort into a locker before entering certain areas.
Which can make administration work on servers a bit of a chore.
GJC
I find it *hugely* amusing that worshippers at the Church of Jobs have been telling us for years that the hardware specs don't matter, it's the user experience that is key.
Now the M1 chip has come along, and all we have heard for the last six months is hardware specs, quoted endlessly as if they are the only thing that matters.
Here's a thought for you. It's going to come as quite a shock, you might want to sit down. Here goes:
Most users don't need high performance in a laptop. They run Office applications, and do a bit of web browsing. All these Apple weenies showing how fast they can edit 4K videos and manipulate 3D models? We're just not interested.
GJC
That rather depends on the actions and reactions of the various nation states in the face of climate change.
In an extreme worst-case scenario, dwindling resources and growing populations could easily trigger WW3, and I for one would rather be watching that from a bunker on Mars than a bunker on Earth.
Of course, that rather presupposes that the bunker on Mars is self-sufficient, which is going to take a while to achieve.
GJC