• Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    16 days ago

    Yeah, if they want to make satellites last longer, they could go a bit higher in their orbits. The option is there.

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      But they specifically don’t want to do that because ensuring a 5 year service life means you are required to continue buying more satellites from them every 5 years. Literally burning resources into nothingness just to pursue a predatory subscription model.

      It also helps their case that LEO has much lower latency than mid or high orbit but I refuse to believe that that is their primary driving concern behind this and not the former.

      • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Who’s buying satellites?

        SpaceX is putting up satellites for SpaceX, they’re the manufacturer and operator…

        It’s definitely in their best interest to keep them working as long as possible.

        That said, they’re high end communications devices, very fancy routers essentially. And like all computer technology, these things become obsolete quickly. So even if they could last 20 years, you wouldn’t want them even 10 years from now. 100 GB/s speeds might be great now, but 10 years down the road 10 TB/s could be the norm, so at that point why are you still trying to provide service with ancient hardware 100x slower than it should be.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        LEO does offer legitimate advantages not just to latency but also for minimizing the abandoned space junk left in orbit. The satellites will deorbit fairly quickly after running out of fuel.

        Though I’m sure you’re correct about the main reason for the choice.