• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    105 months ago

    If we can figure out how to put them on the bottom of the ocean and pipelines over just about any terrain, I think we can figure this out

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        Because building space ports and rocket launches have 0 impact as well.

        But you acknowledge this, so what’s your point? Why pay a techno billionaire when we can publicly fund cables way cheaper and more friendly?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            It’s has its place for sure.

            But the physics are far more against satalite.

            But the reason I don’t believe in large scale satalite systems for consumers is because they’re disposable. They all fall down or contribute to the growing space junk problem.

            So it’s not really any better at the end of the day than just burying a fibre cable for 40 years.

          • Dr. Moose
            link
            fedilink
            English
            15 months ago

            How are satellites better if they will never be faster? Do we just accept life in 300ms latency? We will always need better communication so it makes no sense to invest into inferior product even if it’s more accessible currently.

            Unless quantum communication becomes real thing nothing will match fiber and cell towers in the foreseeable future.

            Sat is a fringe technology for war and extreme remote areas, everything else is already solved.

              • Dr. Moose
                link
                fedilink
                English
                15 months ago

                And my OP clearly stated that sat has uses but it’s compleyely overhyped otherwise. So I’m not sure what are you even talking about here if not just goal post moving.