• @[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.