Elon Musk. Twitter. Babylon Bee.

[Robert]

Yes, Starlink exists, just like Immarsat and Iridium satellite phones

If I remember right, those other two are not low earth orbit satellites. Starlink is. That makes a big difference.

[Ken]

Yes, Starlink exists, just like Immarsat and Iridium satellite phones

If I remember right, those other two are not low earth orbit satellites. Starlink is. That makes a big difference.

Inmarsat is high earth (22,000 miles) which allows them to be geostationary like GPS satellites so that antennas can be permanently aimed directly at them with a high degree of precision.

Both Starlink and Iridium satellites are low earth which is still 350 to 500 miles above the earth. It also means they are not geostationary but zipping by at thousands of miles per hour. So it is still extremely problematic for ordinary cell phones to talk to them. The maximum range of cell phone towers on earth is about 25-45 miles and they are MUCH higher powered than any satellite because they are tied into the power grid while a satellite is battery and solar powered. Starlink satellites only transmit at about 50 watts whereas a typical 4G tower is in the multiple kilowatt range. Yet they are still 10x closer than the closest possible approach of a Starlink satellite.

Remember if a Starlink satellite is 350 miles above the earth it sill still only be directly overhead of a given location for no more than seconds and that is only if it is orbiting at the exact minute of latitude of the user. Most of the time it will be 500-1000 or more miles away from your location and moving fast. Ordinary low-power cell phones are simply not made for that. They are made to talk to stationary towers that are usually no more than a few miles away. And it is why Iridium phones are big bulky bricks because they have much higher power transmitters and big batteries. There is no doubt that Elon could make very cool Starlink phones. But they would be big bulky phones just like the Iridium phones to accommodate the battery and high-power transmitter and would be on completely different frequencies as ordinary cell phones. So would not be cheap.

The point is that satellite phone and internet technology has been around for decades but it is still extremely expensive and cumbersome. If you want broadband and not voice service you have to buy a dedicated antenna and terminal costing thousands of dollars and data plans that cost hundreds of dollars per month for very limited data. Even Starlink which is the latest and most modern system is expensive and cumbersome. A portable Starlink setup looks like this which is not something you are going to carry around in your pocket to check google maps or your instagram page when you are out of cell signal range

[Robert]

Remember if a Starlink satellite is 350 miles above the earth it sill still only be directly overhead of a given location for no more than seconds and that is only if it is orbiting at the exact minute of latitude of the user.

That is why the s.0 versions need the bigger antenna. The 30 minute delay is only early on when there are just a few satellites up. Once the earth is blanketed with many, that will disappear. I am not saying it will be better than a local tower. I am saying it will work where there are NO towers to hit. This happens often in rural areas.

[Ken]

Remember if a Starlink satellite is 350 miles above the earth it sill still only be directly overhead of a given location for no more than seconds and that is only if it is orbiting at the exact minute of latitude of the user.

That is why the s.0 versions need the bigger antenna. The 30 minute delay is only early on when there are just a few satellites up. Once the earth is blanketed with many, that will disappear. I am not saying it will be better than a local tower. I am saying it will work where there are NO towers to hit. This happens often in rural areas.

I'm still skeptical. Ever try to get a cell signal when flying on a commercial flight? On an commercial airliner you are only about 7 miles up and traveling at about 500 mph and flying over thousands of densely packed high-power cell towers. And yet you barely ever get a signal, often because the plane is traveling too fast to lock on a tower. Musk is talking about using the same generic low-power cell phones that don't work on airplanes and locking onto satellites that are about 50-times weaker than cell towers, are about 50-200 times higher in the sky, and traveling about 25-times faster than commercial aircraft. It is no wonder they are talking about how a single text message will take 1/2 hour to send. And that is their optimistic promise.

Of course cell tower transmitters are pointed horizontally, not straight up so they aren't really made for connecting to overhead aircraft. But they also broadcast broadly, not just in a narrow spot beam. So you can usually get a signal when the aircraft is going slower and closer to land.

Obviously the technology exists to make phone calls via satellite phones. It has existed for 20 years. But they are big bricks with big antennas that are specifically designed for that purpose. What I am skeptical of is whether Elon will be able to make his satellites connect to generic Apple and Samsung phones that are not at all designed for that purpose, and that are optimized for completely different features.

Of course Elon can manufacture his own phones to work with his Starlink. But that will cost a fortune and he won't have the cost-effectiveness or volume advantage of being able to produce hundreds of millions of them in Asian factories. So they will end up being very expensive one-off items and that will defeat the whole purpose of cheap and easy wireless communications outside of tower range. The big wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T don't even try to produce their own phones. They know better. They leave it up to Apple and Samsung. Elon can't actually do that because his satellites operate on completely different frequencies and with different technology than any off-the-shelf existing phone. So there are no existing off-the-shelf phones designed to work on his system and he is forced to attempt this "kludge" solution, or at least promising it.

I guess we can check in here in 5 years and see who is right. My suspicion is that this is like his fully autonomous self-driving car that for the past 10 years he keeps promising is just 6 months to a year away.

[temporal1]

Babe Ruth


Thomas A. Edison


Garden variety critics

[Robert]

My suspicion is that this is like his fully autonomous self-driving car that for the past 10 years he keeps promising is just 6 months to a year away.

Again, I am not sure long term about one person having so much power, but he is doing a lot of things to better humanity right now. Much more than any of us.

[Ken]

Yes but a 99% successful self driving car is not good enough. Even a 99.99% self driving car is not good enough because you still as a driver have to sit there and pay attention and be ready to take over in an instant for the 1 second out of every hour that the car doesn't know what do do. Or else you crash, which is what Teslas are still doing.

"Full Self Driving Beta"?

Who are the beta testers? You and everyone else sharing a road today with a Tesla.

This is what Elon considers "beta testing"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... t-crashes/

Teslas running Autopilot involved in 273 crashes reported since last year: Regulators released the first batch of data since mandating that companies such as Tesla report on serious crashes involving their driver-assistance systems

SAN FRANCISCO — Tesla vehicles running its Autopilot software have been involved in 273 reported crashes over roughly the past year, according to regulators, far more than previously known and providing concrete evidence regarding the real-world performance of its futuristic features.

The numbers, which were published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for the first time Wednesday, show that Tesla vehicles made up nearly 70 percent of the 392 crashes involving advanced driver-assistance systems reported since last July, and a majority of the fatalities and serious injuries — some of which date back further than a year. Eight of the Tesla crashes took place before June 2021, according to data released by NHTSA on Wednesday morning.

Previously, NHTSA said it had probed 42 crashes potentially involving driver assistance, 35 of which included Tesla vehicles, in a more limited data set that stretched back to 2016.

[Josh]

It’s really funny to watch every liberal suddenly turn into a Musk sceptic.

[RZehr]

It’s really funny to watch every liberal suddenly turn into a Musk sceptic.

The media is now very much anti-Musk. Everything they write has negative connotations.
It’s one thing to make products, it’s another thing entirely to impact values. The Amish should take note. It’s one thing to sell furniture and organic food, but….

[Ken]

It’s really funny to watch every liberal suddenly turn into a Musk sceptic.

I've been a Musk skeptic for years.