1. breadwinner 4 hours ago
    The world needs an alternative to Starlink yesterday.

    If you criticize Musk on X, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist” will reduce distribution of your posts [1].

    We don't want someone like that owning critical internet infrastructure.

    [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/04/23/business/elon...

    1. godelski 3 hours ago
      While I agree, I also think we have to contend that this is a bigger issue than Musk and Bezos. Fundamentally, this is a global issue. There's only so much space and the laws of physics can be unkind.

      Given that, I'd argue that critical infrastructure like this is concerning in the hands of any individual entity.

      It would be concerning even if exclusively controlled by Mr Rodgers[0]. There's an opportunity here to build a global coalition and mutual partnership like never before. All parties benefit by sharing. And all parties MUST settle for inferior infrastructure by not working together. There's no way around this... the laws of physics are just a constraint that can't be overcome...

      My main comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43827615

      [0] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/mister-rogers

    2. ty6853 4 hours ago
      It's hilarious hearing family/friends who I have invited to remote areas shit-talk Starlink while using it, because we have no great other choice. Personally I will buy internet from Satan himself if it works and for the right price.
      1. pseudocomposer 3 hours ago
        Are you saying this includes the price of not being allowed to criticize the CEO?
        1. ty6853 2 hours ago
          This got me wondering who the CEO of Starlink is. I could not find it anywhere.

          I know who the CEO of the 100% owner of Starlink is, but not Starlink itself. Do they even have one?

          IIRC most states when filing an LLC for private equity require a president but not a CEO.

    3. tw04 3 hours ago
      The problem is there’s no indication Bezos will be any better. He was more than happy to bend the knee to Trump.

      What we really need is the European Union to fund a global competitor.

    4. rozal 4 hours ago
      Why is Bezos preferable to Elon?
      1. an0malous 3 hours ago
        It doesn’t have to be Bezos, but competition is preferable to monopolies
        1. godelski 3 hours ago
          Unfortunately in this case I think we have a natural monopoly. In such cases, I do not think control should be in any individuals' hands.

            Longer comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43827615
          1. ty6853 3 hours ago
            Wouldn't it be possible to privatize space in some way like land, and then enforce any damages to neighbor's 'land'/orbit?. Might involve some easements for 'right of way' into higher / intersecting orbit.
            1. godelski 2 hours ago
              I mean you could... but good luck getting global agreement on that and realistically no. It is a thing that sounds nice and could look nice on paper but real world complications will result in issues pretty fast. Sounds like a great way to start a war as treaty violations will be inevitable and unavoidable.

              If you divide up by altitude: it requires significant negotiation to place a vehicle (an arbitrary spacecraft or satellite) in any location.

              If you partition by location (e.g. project current airspace upwards): your vehicles can't abide by these rules. They must orbit the planet. They will eventually go over most countries.

              If you partition by orbit: you have to contend with precession. Craft drift[0,1]. This is because Earth is an oblate spheroid and not a sphere. It is also caused by angular momentum itself, so your orbit rotates. You will start in one and over time move into another. There's not much you can do about this and it is quite costly to maneuver (constant orbital maneuvering means an exponential increase in weight, complexity, and cost). Remember, the Earth does not rotate around in its axis in a fixed period of time, nor does it around the sun.

              So really the laws of physics have you in a bind. Things are constantly moving and changing. So even the best laid plans will eventually lead to violation (and thus conflict) even through no ill-intent.

              This is actually why a lot of (especially "hard") Sci-Fi has treated space travel as a global unification period. Because it becomes necessary in order to avoid conflict. This was a bigger discussion in the 60's and 70's when the initial space ventures were occurring and in the public eye, but has naturally drifted out of conversation as the underlying motivation similarly did. Though it stayed in conversation for domain experts who frequently content with this still.

              tldr: No. Physics is a bitch

              [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession

              [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apsidal_precession

    5. aaron695 4 hours ago
      [dead]
    6. AStonesThrow 3 hours ago
      [flagged]
      1. breadwinner 2 hours ago
        Fortunately FOX News is not the only news source. We don't want Starlink to be the only satellite internet serving rural areas. Is that hard to understand?
      2. Freedom2 57 minutes ago
        No, but I'm fairly sure FOX News and the NY Yankees don't advocate themselves as free speech absolutionists. So I'm not sure what your comparison is trying to do here.
    7. threeseed 4 hours ago
      We have an alternative for 99% of the world and it’s fibre.

      Which brings everyone the same speeds instead of perpetuating a digital divide between cities and rural areas. Which may not be bad now but once we start moving to ten and hundred gigabit plans, solutions like Starlink are going to resemble dialup.

      1. robalpha 4 hours ago
        This makes zero sense. Fibre is not going to be economically viable in rural areas at all. If that's the only option, they won't have any internet at all. I also don't think we'll be moving to >10g plans anytime soon. Only a small portion of users have even close to 1g, and everyone else seems fine with it.
        1. lowmagnet 4 hours ago
          Weird, I'm sitting here in a rural area and I have 1g fiber. You may have forgotten that cooperatives exist. It's a common error, since they mainly exist in exurb and rural areas.

          The cool thing is that since they often own the power right of way, they can run fiber on it without any change.

          The way coops work is that we're the owners, we vote for initiatives, etc. The local power company is now our region's #1 internet provider, hands down.

          1. bdamm 3 hours ago
            Which is great for you, but the vast majority of the world doesn't have such strong local organization consisting of members who can afford to pay for big ditch infrastructure.
            1. threeseed 3 hours ago
              Vast majority of the world is having fibre being laid by governments.

              You need to vote and encourage others to make fast internet an election issue.

              1. bdamm 3 hours ago
                I'm sorry, but in an environment where sovreignty is increasingly the dominant election issue, fiber doesn't rate.

                And even if every house has fiber, there are still many cases for mobile and robust Internet that can't be covered by cellular networks.

                The reality is that Starlink needs a competitor. And besides, satellite Internet from LEO satellites is a viable competitive option to fiber, based on infrastructure costs alone. It's all nice to convince slow moving bureaucracies to lay out fiber, but nobody wants to wait the five to ten years for that to happen, when you can subscribe today and get it within a week.

          2. ty6853 3 hours ago
            If you get 'free' fiber you are just punting the cost to other members.

            It cost me $15,000 to establish my co-op membership 1,000 ft it went to the next guy. Our bylaws require all members to pay 100% of the full unsubsidized cost of extension up front.

            This is fairly common. Not a lot of co-ops are built where prior entrants foot the full cost of new entrants.

            The real cost of extending fiber can be $10+ a foot overhead or $30+ underground, which is a hard sell to prior entrants as a freebie to toss out.

            1. mikestew 3 hours ago
              Where was "free fiber" mentioned? The only thing I can figure is that you mistaked an "n" for an "r", maybe?
              1. ty6853 3 hours ago
                Looks like I misread

                >they can run fiber on it without any change.

                I thought it said without charge, my bad. High cost but no change I guess.

        2. AngryData 3 hours ago
          Meanwhile, me living in a rural area, didn't have internet besides 56k until 4g LTE existed, got co-op fiber direct to my home now for less than my wireless plan, and it is so successful they have expanded to everywhere around here and continuously growing.

          If an area could be wired with phones in the past, it can be wired for fiber now even cheaper and nearly all of rural areas were wired with electrical and phone lines before. Fiber is cheaper and lighter than copper lines, bucket trucks have never been more common, and there are very few existing utilities to contend with. This fiber is WAY cheaper than any satellite internet, works even when the weather is shitty, and doesn't require investments into proprietary gear.

        3. ty6853 4 hours ago
          A lot of rural areas have small-scale wireless ISPs at 10-100mbps. You just have to install a directional antenna on your roof.

          This doesn't work once you get really remote, nor does fiber.

          In any case none of them beat the experience of pulling an antenna out of a box and it pretty much just working.

          1. thallium205 3 hours ago
            These services are generally terrible compared to Starlink.
            1. esseph 2 hours ago
              Maybe 15 years ago, but not for at least 10 years, and definitely 5 in most markets.

              I'd take fiber -> Taara -> Tarana 3.65 CBRS any day of the week over any LEO. Way faster, way lower latency, and way lower total cost to deploy. Also scales massively better.

            2. ty6853 3 hours ago
              No doubt, but given the cost and challenge of launching a satellite, I think your best bet if your rural enclave despises Starlink for whatever reason, right now your best bet is to run fiber to a single house and make a mini wireless ISP.
        4. vel0city 3 hours ago
          Somehow we managed to bring telephone and electricity to rural areas but golly a fiber line is just too hard.
        5. threeseed 4 hours ago
          a) Hospitals and roads are not economically viable either. We do it because it serves the national good and by making people more productive it improves the economy as a whole.

          b) In Australia they are trialing 100g over the existing fibre network.

          c) Everyone was fine with dialup at one point as well.

          1. tastyfreeze 4 hours ago
            The interstate wasn't built for public good or trade. It was built for military. Public use for commerce is a byproduct.
          2. laurencei 4 hours ago
            I'm from Australia.

            You dont want to use us as an example of internet speeds or leading the world on anything in this space.

            Our internet infrastructure/speed etc is considered sub optimal by many. It is (slowly) getting better - but it has been years of lost oppoutunity.

            1. threeseed 4 hours ago
              a) Australia is a very large, geographically diverse country that has committed to rolling out fibre in rural areas. It is an example that it can be done and you don’t need to rely on bandwidth limited satellites.

              b) Our internet infrastructure was sub-optimal but is being upgraded to full fibre to the door across the country. 1g is available to consumers today, 10g to businesses, 100g in testing. And it’s future proof.

  2. thot_experiment 3 hours ago
    SpaceX launched something like three or four times the mass to orbit last year as every other entity in the world, government and private combined. Kuiper is a LARP and will remain one for many years even with optimistic forecasts. China might have a workable constellation in a few years but we are likely at least 5 years away from a meaningful competitor to Starlink. Obviously having a non-elon option would be great but I am extremely doubtful anyone will be able to pull it off anytime soon.
  3. theLegionWithin 58 minutes ago
    more competition is always a good thing - but Amazon isn't some bastion of openness & free thought... internet though Amazon will likely be a very closed ecosystem.

    wonder if the EU will try to create their own constellation...

  5. deedubaya 4 hours ago
    Why are these going up on ULA rockets and not Blue Origin?
    1. boznz 4 hours ago
      New Glen is their orbital rocket but it is not ready yet. Hopefully it will be ready for some of the launches, but it must hurt owning a rocket company and having to use another companies to launch your satellites.

      From the project web page

      "Project Kuiper has secured 80 launches from Arianespace, Blue Origin, SpaceX, and United Launch Alliance, and we have options for additional launches with Blue Origin, providing enough capacity to deploy the majority of our satellite constellation. The agreements comprise the largest commercial procurement of launch capacity in history, and support thousands of suppliers and highly skilled jobs across the U.S. and Europe."

      1. godelski 3 hours ago
        It's worth mentioning too that BO is following the same strategy as SpaceX (and others), in becoming their own customers. Lesson learned from the 90's launch vehicle boom. Companies couldn't scale without customers, it's a vicious feedback loop. No customers because prices are too high, can't bring prices down without more customers. Either you have to become your own customer or you have to bootstrap. It's a long way to bootstrap and an expensive industry.

        Though using ULA is kinda a bridge to the looking deadline[0]. So if they can't get satellites up now they won't have this means for being their own customer in the future.

        [0] https://news.satnews.com/2025/03/19/project-kuiper-facing-re...

    2. lupusreal 4 hours ago
      They need to launch fast with as many launchers as they can, due to their looming FCC deadline. The more they launch, the better their odds for getting an extension to their deadline as more launches demonstrates their seriousness.

      They're even going to launch on Falcon 9 (albeit after a shareholder lawsuit..)

    3. timewizard 4 hours ago
      New Shepard has limited payload delivery capacity. It's mostly for crew and experiments held in lockers in the crew compartment.

      New Glenn has a 100,000lb to LEO payload capacity which makes it absurdly oversized for this mission.

      Atlas V has a 18,000 to 42,000lb to LEO payload capacity. The variable solid rocket booster configuration really gives this platform the most flexibility for customer needs.

      1. idontwantthis 4 hours ago
        New shepard has zero payload delivery capacity. It's suborbital.
        1. timewizard 4 hours ago
          As it's currently configured and unstaged. That does not mean the vehicle is completely incapable of delivering payloads to LEO.
          1. dotancohen 3 hours ago
            What second stage are you thinking of putting on top of it? Or, no less likely, what first stage are you thinking of putting under it?
  6. WalterSobchak 5 hours ago
    That's a really interesting name. How would you pronounce it?
    2. AStonesThrow 3 hours ago
      The Kuiper Belt is a big mess of space debris in the outer Solar System. It's where many comets and asteroids may originate before we spot them coming towards the Sun. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

      It's a rather apropros name for a project which likewise plans to pollute Earth orbit with a bunch of space junk in order to compete with other junk providers. Hopefully their junk does not often touch.

      In related news, I also learned recently that the Oort Cloud may not exist at all. I've often seen objects referred to as "originating in the Oort Cloud" but Oort himself had simply developed a hypothesis, and the "Cloud" has not progressed beyond "hypothesis" status since that time. It's amazing how imaginary structures enter our consciousness as if they are real, if enough scientists talk about it that way!

    3. jpm_sd 5 hours ago
      KY-per

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerard_Kuiper

      1. eminence32 4 hours ago
        > /ˈkaɪpər/

        Wikipedia has long included IPA pronunciation info for pages about people and other things, which is hyperlinked to a handy guide. But I recently discovered something useful and not entirely obvious:

        If you over your mouse over each letter in the IPA pronunciation, you'll get a tooltip describing the sound of that specific letter.

  7. godelski 3 hours ago
    While I think we need alternatives to Starlink and competition in the space[0], I think we need to recognize that there are physical limitations. Consequently there is a natural monopoly here, and if we have too many providers we will block out the sky[1] and risk creating the Kessler Syndrome[2]. While these satellites are being target at LEO and will naturally decay, lessening the harm if a Kessler effect arises, I think it is worth noting.

    Interestingly, we had a strikingly similar event happen not too long ago: telecom.

    When it was all wired, we had a choice: to allow wide competition and let the wires block out the skies[3], or share. The same problem happened again when it came to the airwaves. And again when it came to satellite communications. Here we are, at the natural continuation of this.

    The physics of these things means that there are natural limitations that can't be avoided and can create advantages that can't be superseded, harming competition[4]. The physics means that there are better frequencies than others to use. The physics means that there are better orbits than others. Certainly first mover should be rewarded, but certainly the first mover cannot have undo power to squash any competition. That does not benefit anyone[5].

    So now with a second player is this space[!0], we need to take the notion more seriously. Opinions of Musk aside[6], we're at a point where action need be taken. If the ball doesn't get rolling on this then everyone is worse off.[7]

    I want to stress that this is a global issue. Even if the US solves the problem for US companies (in whatever manner that is), this doesn't change the fact that those laws of physics still apply and other countries exist. What about companies in China? India? Europe? Or other countries/regions? This was less of a problem for other communications but at this point the importance of a global solution becomes necessary. There is not enough space[0] for even a few countries to throw up their own mega constellations. They will start interfering with one another....

    The truth of the matter is a coalition provides a better tool for everyone. But no coalition means the service is worse for every player. It is a literal Tragedy of the Commons[8] situation.

    [0] pun unintended

    [1] Mostly to Earth based astronomy. But there are other consequences and visible light isn't the only portion of the EM spectrum that is blocked. Plus... there's the physical layer!

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

    [3] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-r...

    [4] If government has a role in the economy I think even those that are fairly libertarian agree that it should ensure competition is able to occur (even if that the means is through stepping back).

    [5] Even in the long run it does not benefit the company in power. Only in the short term is there an advantage.

    [6] Disclosure: I am very much not a fan. (Please don't get me started... I'd like to stay on this topic. At least for a bit. The other parts are also important but I'm hoping we can have a serious talk about this one thing. If nothing more than to solve a mutual problem)

    [7] Even if you are a fan of Musk I think it is likely that we can agree that Musk's involvement in this decision making process should exclusively come from the perspective of SpaceX and not through his influence in the government. A functioning and competitive market needs a neutral third party decision maker, or at be a mediator. Even the perception of undo influence is detrimental to the process. It'll be difficult (potentially impossible) to decouple given current conditions.

    [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

  8. wnevets 4 hours ago
    [flagged]
    1. lupusreal 4 hours ago
      Tired of these ignorant gripes from people who think they know better than the entire space industry because they ingested some popsci trash on reddit or youtube. If you actually knew anything you would know that LEO constellations are far less risky than the old school method of putting communication satellites in high orbits like GEO (where any accident means orbital debris which will effectively never decay.)
      1. wkat4242 4 hours ago
        The guy who thought of the Kessler syndrome was a respected scientist in the space community and he was specifically speaking of LEO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

        I think there's worse effects though. Like the impact on astronomy.. SpaceX has done a few things to minimise the effect but there is still an effect.

        The Kessler syndrome is a hypothetical phenomenon that could possibly occur under the wrong circumstances. But inference with astronomy is happening now.

      2. omneity 4 hours ago
        For the uninitiated, what this comment means is that LEO-orbiting payloads have a naturally limited lifespan as the orbit decays over time on its own causing the LEO satellites to get closer to earth and burn down to smithereens due to friction with the atmosphere.

        This is why Starlink keeps launching new satellites on the regular. I believe theirs have a six years lifespan but don’t quote me on that.

        1. firesteelrain 4 hours ago
          It also provides a bunch of real life experience for the company in launching rockets rather than being this rare occurrence they can iterate faster and fix problems as they go. Due to this, Falcon9 matured very quickly in my opinion
      3. wnevets 4 hours ago
        [flagged]