“fiber will be much more safe than relying on sats”
Spoken like someone who has never had some idiot in a backhoe chop a fiber bundle…multiple times in a week.
We have a saying in IT. Always carry a 1ft section of single-mode fiberoptic when hiking. If you ever get lost, just bury that sucker and some dipshit in a backhoe will be out there in a hour to cut it in half.
True, but your’re comparing a single fiber optic line to an entire network of satellites. Blow up one, and they simply route traffic around it. Blow up 10, and you might have a small moving deadzone that removes service for a few minutes.
If you want to compare accurately, look at the time it takes to replace the cable infrastructure for an entire nation vs the time it takes to relaunch all the star link satellites. We started using satellites in the first place because it was the fastest (and in many cases, cheapest) way to get TV coverage anywhere on the planet.
You understand EMPs wouldn’t affect one sat, right? Or a capture net can hit an entire train?
If you want to compare accurately, look at the time it takes to replace the cable infrastructure for an entire nation vs the time it takes to relaunch all the star link satellites.
That can, and has been done in a couple of weeks. It happens somewhat regularly.
10-20 days to launch a repair crew, and another week to affect the repair. At a few hundred million in costs.
A single rocket launch it minimally a year of planning. And BILLIONS in costs.
We started using satellites in the first place because it was the fastest (and in many cases, cheapest) way to get TV coverage anywhere on the planet.
Well, yes, because they are placed in a high orbit (Not LEO) generally, in order to cover massive patterns with ONE WAY signalling (Aside from the one uplink).
This is a host of difference between myriad 2-way ground stations.
I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.
So, generally, “nations” are not connected via undersea cables, continents are.
So, yes, repairing one, maybe two, would be reconnecting an entire national network. Which is STILL cheaper than replacing a mass of Starlink sats… Which, btw, need replacing routinely anyways, because their orbits decay purposefully.
So, every 5 years, we need spend tens of billions to launch another set of trains, just to have them fall into the ocean after 5 years of service. Just to obtain a service that is cheaper, and doesn’t require nearly as much regular investment if we just used fiber.
I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems. And, you also don’t understand that without connected ground stations, served by those “at risk fiber networks on the ground” (That you purport as very risky), Starlink doesn’t work, either.
I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.
I think you didn’t quite understand. I’m not talking about just undersea cables. An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.
I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.
Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.
I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems.
It is simply harder to sabotage if the wires are underground and cannot be readily seen by hostile actors.
This statement is not correct. It is the topic being discussed. Fiber network are more vulnerable than satellite networks. It takes specialized weapons to take out a single satellite link. Any idiot with wire clippers can take out a fiber link, and it happens all the time. Fiber networks are more difficult to replace at scale than a satellite network, and individuals links are more important to fiber network than they are to satellite networks.
The thread topic is SpaceX saying we should dump all fiber plans and go with Starlink.
I had to clarify what you were arguing about, because otherwise I was going to yell at you about latency issues and data throttling and the risks of Kessler syndrome and about how bad it is to put critical infrastructure in the hands of a single company.
“fiber will be much more safe than relying on sats”
Spoken like someone who has never had some idiot in a backhoe chop a fiber bundle…multiple times in a week.
We have a saying in IT. Always carry a 1ft section of single-mode fiberoptic when hiking. If you ever get lost, just bury that sucker and some dipshit in a backhoe will be out there in a hour to cut it in half.
And, when it happens, it generally gets repaired in hours. You cannot launch a new constellation in hours.
True, but your’re comparing a single fiber optic line to an entire network of satellites. Blow up one, and they simply route traffic around it. Blow up 10, and you might have a small moving deadzone that removes service for a few minutes.
If you want to compare accurately, look at the time it takes to replace the cable infrastructure for an entire nation vs the time it takes to relaunch all the star link satellites. We started using satellites in the first place because it was the fastest (and in many cases, cheapest) way to get TV coverage anywhere on the planet.
You understand EMPs wouldn’t affect one sat, right? Or a capture net can hit an entire train?
That can, and has been done in a couple of weeks. It happens somewhat regularly.
https://www.leadventgrp.com/blog/submarine-cable-damage-and-repair-claims-and-remedial-measures
10-20 days to launch a repair crew, and another week to affect the repair. At a few hundred million in costs.
A single rocket launch it minimally a year of planning. And BILLIONS in costs.
Well, yes, because they are placed in a high orbit (Not LEO) generally, in order to cover massive patterns with ONE WAY signalling (Aside from the one uplink).
This is a host of difference between myriad 2-way ground stations.
https://www.leadventgrp.com/blog/submarine-cable-damage-and-repair-claims-and-remedial-measures
Whoops, there you go again comparing the impact and resolution of a single cable to an entire national network.
That’s… um… how it works? It’s generally one, maybe two, cables connecting continents: https://dabrownstein.com/2015/06/30/charting-interconnectedness-in-undersea-internet-cables/
I mean, some continents, like the US, have myriad cables connecting. And purposefully sabotaging these is almost as challenging as repairing them.
So, generally, “nations” are not connected via undersea cables, continents are.
So, yes, repairing one, maybe two, would be reconnecting an entire national network. Which is STILL cheaper than replacing a mass of Starlink sats… Which, btw, need replacing routinely anyways, because their orbits decay purposefully.
So, every 5 years, we need spend tens of billions to launch another set of trains, just to have them fall into the ocean after 5 years of service. Just to obtain a service that is cheaper, and doesn’t require nearly as much regular investment if we just used fiber.
https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
I get the feeling you don’t understand the economics, physics, and infrastructure of various connectivity systems. And, you also don’t understand that without connected ground stations, served by those “at risk fiber networks on the ground” (That you purport as very risky), Starlink doesn’t work, either.
I think you didn’t quite understand. I’m not talking about just undersea cables. An accurate comparison for the impact of blowing up the entire Starlink constellation would be to remove ALL the fiber optic cables in an entire nation, not just the undersea cables. That is a more accurate comparison.
I may not have an expert level of economic knowledge, but the fact that Starlink exists and it can provide better service than rural broadband programs or the extensive terrestrial mobile broadband networks (which still use satellites BTW) is a pretty good indicator that it is viable.
Frankly this entire statement is insulting, and you should retract it.
So, just to clarify, are you in favor of replacing all fiber with Starlink?
Nope. But I think it would faster and easier to replace all fiber with Starlink than it would to replace all fiber with fiber again.
Okay, so to clarify, are you in favor of ending all new fiber installation projects in favor of Starlink?
No. That’s not what I said. Please stop trying to frame this like I am pro-starlink. I’m not.
I’m just trying to understand why this argument is even happening.
You seem to basically agree with them. What’s even the point?
This statement is not correct. It is the topic being discussed. Fiber network are more vulnerable than satellite networks. It takes specialized weapons to take out a single satellite link. Any idiot with wire clippers can take out a fiber link, and it happens all the time. Fiber networks are more difficult to replace at scale than a satellite network, and individuals links are more important to fiber network than they are to satellite networks.
The thread topic is SpaceX saying we should dump all fiber plans and go with Starlink.
I had to clarify what you were arguing about, because otherwise I was going to yell at you about latency issues and data throttling and the risks of Kessler syndrome and about how bad it is to put critical infrastructure in the hands of a single company.
I’m well aware of those issues as well, which is why I’m not pro-starlink replacing all terrestrial networks.