Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
On 6/19/23 14:56, Mike Hammett wrote: You're assuming that an uncapped service is viable to offer. In many areas, it is. In many areas, it is not. It is viable for mobile services, even though I think mobile operators have taken the model a little too far. But for fixed line services, it is mainly used to print free money, or limit investment in the network. I'm okay with either model an operator chooses to take, because until someone else comes along to break capped services on fixed line, there isn't much anyone can do about it. Mark.
Re: New addresses for b.root-servers.net
Matt Corallo wrote: Note that diginotar was advertised to be operated with HSMs and four-eyes principle, which means both of them were proven to be untrustworthy marketing hypes. Even more reason to do DNSSEC stapling! See hypes of HSMs and four-eyes from DNSSEC operators. This is totally unrelated to the question at hand. There wasn't a question about whether a user relying on trusted authorities can maybe be whacked by said trusted authorities (though there's been a ton of work in this space, most notably requiring CT these days), So, let's recognize ISPs as trusted authorities and we are reasonably safe without excessive cost to support DNSSEC with all the untrustworthy hypes of HSMs and four-eyes principle. it was purely about whether we can rely on pure "I sent a packet to IP X, did it get to IP X", which *is* solved by DNSSEC. That's overkill. See above for the proper solution. Masataka Ohta
Re: New addresses for b.root-servers.net
On 6/19/23 2:08 AM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Matt Corallo wrote:
Both in theory and practice, DNSSEC is not secure end to
end
Indeed, but (a) there's active work in the IETF to change that (DNSSEC stapling
to TLS certs)
TLS? What? As was demonstrated by diginotar, PKI is NOT
cryptographically secure and vulnerable to MitM attacks
on intermediate intelligent entities of CAs.
Note that diginotar was advertised to be operated
with HSMs and four-eyes principle, which means
both of them were proven to be untrustworthy
marketing hypes.
Even more reason to do DNSSEC stapling! It avoids some of the CA issue (well, it would if you could
make it required, I don't believe the current design is required, sadly).
and (b) that wasn't the point - the above post said "It’s not like you can really trust your
packets going to B _today_ are going to and from the real B (or Bs)." which is exactly what DNSSEC
protects against!
As long as root key rollover is performed in time and
intermediate zones such as ccTLDs are not compromised,
maybe, which is why it is not very useful or secure.
The following description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar
Secondly, they issued certificates for the Dutch
government's PKIoverheid ("PKIgovernment") program.
This issuance was via two intermediate certificates,
each of which chained up to one of the two "Staat der
Nederlanden" root CAs. National and local Dutch
authorities and organisations offering services for the
government who want to use certificates for secure internet
communication can request such a certificate. Some of the
most-used electronic services offered by Dutch governments
used certificates from DigiNotar. Examples were the
authentication infrastructure DigiD and the central
car-registration organisation Netherlands Vehicle
Authority [nl] (RDW).
makes it clear that entities operating ccTLDs may also
be compromised.
This is totally unrelated to the question at hand. There wasn't a question about whether a user
relying on trusted authorities can maybe be whacked by said trusted authorities (though there's been
a ton of work in this space, most notably requiring CT these days), it was purely about whether we
can rely on pure "I sent a packet to IP X, did it get to IP X", which *is* solved by DNSSEC.
I agree DNSSEC does not solve all issues with client security, but it doesn't have to, it *does*
solve the issue of a BGP hijack against an authoritative DNS server being able to respond with
whatever IPs it wants (and then get TLS certs because of it).
Matt
Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
> > They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag) > if they are DOA based on a quick search. That does mean that they are > space junk for a while but not permanent space junk. > Sorta. At 500km, an uncontrolled object can take around 10 years to deorbit naturally. It's a function of cross sectional area, mass, and drag coefficient. An uncontrolled object will also, over time, slowly orient itself to a position of least drag, which thereby extends the curve. This is also subject to natural atmospheric density fluctuations. 5 years for a spent bird at 550km is most likely the best possible case, and won't be the norm. On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:32 AM Mark Andrews wrote: > They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag) > if they are DOA based on a quick search. That does mean that they are > space junk for a while but not permanent space junk. > > > On 19 Jun 2023, at 17:44, b...@uu3.net wrote: > > > > Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all. > > How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit. > > > > I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere). > > If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit. > > > > I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be > > better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places. > > Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization. > > > > We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet. > > GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R > > > > > > -- Original message -- > > > > From: Tom Beecher > > To: Dave Taht > > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > > Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of > Data Caps > > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400 > > > >> > >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the > >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight > >> termination system. > >> > > > > The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the > first > > time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold > them > > back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to > problems > > solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore. > > > > The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of > >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised > >> fondag, > >> as thought. > >> > > > > The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still > > exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the > > terms of their contract with the state of Texas. > > > > There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing > >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site > >> has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was > >> issued for the next 6 months last week. > >> > > > > Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to > > the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind > > boggling. > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher > wrote: > > Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more > >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to > >> really drive down the launch cost. > >>> > >>> > >>> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test > >> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in > the > >> media. Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades > >> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes. > >> > >> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the > >> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive. > >> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch. > >> > >> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of > >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised > >> fondag, > >> as thought. > >> > >> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as > >> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and > >> analysis that exists: > >> > >> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut > >> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase > >> > >> They are good folk to track. > >> > >> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of > space: > >> > >> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace > >> > >> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/ > >> > >> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily > >> progress, with live video feeds. > >> > >> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing > >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site > >> has been dug out and
Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
" On land , why do wireline providers not build out into rural areas?" Some of it is indeed your answer. Some of it is also gross incompetence by the operators. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Tom Beecher" To: sro...@ronan-online.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2023 6:38:23 PM Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will. I am not assuming that at all. There is absolutely a market for sat internet. It's just not a $30B revenue a year business as Musk has said. On land , why do wireline providers not build out into rural areas? There is not enough subscriber density to recover buildout costs in an acceptable timeframe. Starlink has the same problem ; the number of possible subscribers is exceptionally low relative to the buildout cost. There won't ever be high demand for Starlink in urban areas because it's not needed, and performance is bad when users are clustered like that. Again, I agree there is a market for sat internet. It's just never going to be anywhere close to as large as what is claimed. On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 7:25 PM < sro...@ronan-online.com > wrote: You are also assuming their only product is Home Internet. Providing Internet to ships at sea, planes in the sky and other more unconventional uses will provide a lot more revenue than the home Internet will. On Jun 17, 2023, at 7:04 PM, Tom Beecher < beec...@beecher.cc > wrote: You’re assuming the launches are costing them something, which in fact may not be true. Rumor has it, they are piggybacking on other payloads which pay for the launches, particularly government contracts. Assuming they are, they aren't doing enough of those launches to piggyback enough sats to reach the 40k claim. Zero out the launch costs, subscriber revenue still doesn't doesn't come close to touching the sat costs. On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:27 PM < sro...@ronan-online.com > wrote: You’re assuming the launches are costing them something, which in fact may not be true. Rumor has it, they are piggybacking on other payloads which pay for the launches, particularly government contracts. On Jun 17, 2023, at 5:54 PM, Tom Beecher < beec...@beecher.cc > wrote: As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not sure that the current economics are the real economics. I'm pretty sure they've been purposefully throttling demand because they still don't have the capacity so it would make sense to overcharge in the mean time. Is there something inherent in their cpe that makes them much more expensive than, say, satellite tv dishes? I can see marginally more because of the LEO aspect, but isn't that mainly just software? It wouldn't surprise me that the main cost is the truck roll. - Starlink currently reports around 1.5M subscribers. At $110 a month, that's $165M in revenue, - A Falcon 9 launch is billed out at $67M. A Falcon 9 can carry up to 60 Starlink sats. That's ~667 launches to reach the stated goal of 40k sats in the constellation. So roughly $45B in just launch costs, if you assume the public launch price. (Because if they are launching their own stuff, they aren't launching an external paying customer.) - The reported price per sat is $250k. Assuming they give themselves a friendly internal discount, the orbital buildout cost are in the neighborhood of $30B for launches, and $10B for sats. - The satellite failure rate is stated to be ~ 3% annually. On a 40K cluster, that's 1200 a year. That's about 20 more launches a year, and $300M for replacement sats. Let's round off and say that's $1B a year there. So far, that's a $40B buildout with a $1B annual run rate. And that's just the orbital costs. We haven't even calculated the manufacturing costs of the receiver dishes, terrestrial network infra cost , opex from staff , R, etc . Numbers kinda speak for themselves here. I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he does have big ambitions. Ambition is good. But reality tends to win the day. As does math. On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 4:38 PM Michael Thomas < m...@mtcc.com > wrote: On 6/17/23 1:25 PM, Tom Beecher wrote: Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner rather than later? Unlikely. They will remain niche. The economics don't make sense for those services to completely replace terrestrial only service. Why would they put up 4 satellites if their ambition is only niche? I mean, I get that Musk is sort of a cuckoo bird but say what you will he does have big
Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
Assuming that Starlink and other LEO are capable of doing so. They've made some lofty goals that have thus far, failed to materialize in many areas (while in many areas, they have). - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Michael Thomas" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:16:22 PM Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps On 6/16/23 1:09 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: >> Mark, >> >> In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options. >> Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. >> Competition is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US >> (and I'm going to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there is >> no service. >> >> As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not a >> focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a ~1/3 >> take rate. > > I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many markets > is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers that, > since there is only so much money and resources to go around. > > What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the > opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are > capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low > hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative > provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other thread. > Won't Starlink and other LEO configurations be that backstop sooner rather than later? I don't know if they have caps as well, but even if they do they could compete with their caps. Mike
Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
You're assuming that an uncapped service is viable to offer. In many areas, it is. In many areas, it is not. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Josh Luthman" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 3:09:08 PM Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps On 6/16/23 21:19, Josh Luthman wrote: > Mark, > > In my world I constantly see people with 0 fixed internet options. > Many of these locations do not even have mobile coverage. Competition > is fine in town, but for millions of people in the US (and I'm going > to assume it's worse or comparable in CA/MX) there is no service. > > As a company primarily delivering to residents, competition is not a > focus for us and for the urban market it's tough to survive on a ~1/3 > take rate. I should have been clearer... the lack of competition in many markets is not unique to North America. I'd say all of the world suffers that, since there is only so much money and resources to go around. What I was trying to say is that should a town or village have the opportunity to receive competition, where existing services are capped, uncapping that via an alternative provider would be low hanging fruit to gain local marketshare. Of course, the alternative provider would need to show up first, but that's a whole other thread. Mark.
Re: New addresses for b.root-servers.net
Matt Corallo wrote:
Both in theory and practice, DNSSEC is not secure end to
end
Indeed, but (a) there's active work in the IETF to change that (DNSSEC
stapling to TLS certs)
TLS? What? As was demonstrated by diginotar, PKI is NOT
cryptographically secure and vulnerable to MitM attacks
on intermediate intelligent entities of CAs.
Note that diginotar was advertised to be operated
with HSMs and four-eyes principle, which means
both of them were proven to be untrustworthy
marketing hypes.
and (b) that wasn't the point - the above post
said "It’s not like you can really trust your packets going to B _today_
are going to and from the real B (or Bs)." which is exactly what DNSSEC
protects against!
As long as root key rollover is performed in time and
intermediate zones such as ccTLDs are not compromised,
maybe, which is why it is not very useful or secure.
The following description
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DigiNotar
Secondly, they issued certificates for the Dutch
government's PKIoverheid ("PKIgovernment") program.
This issuance was via two intermediate certificates,
each of which chained up to one of the two "Staat der
Nederlanden" root CAs. National and local Dutch
authorities and organisations offering services for the
government who want to use certificates for secure internet
communication can request such a certificate. Some of the
most-used electronic services offered by Dutch governments
used certificates from DigiNotar. Examples were the
authentication infrastructure DigiD and the central
car-registration organisation Netherlands Vehicle
Authority [nl] (RDW).
makes it clear that entities operating ccTLDs may also
be compromised.
If its not useful, please describe a mechanism by which an average
recursive resolver can be protected against someone hijacking C root on
Hurricane Electric (which doesn't otherwise have the announcement at
all, last I heard) and responding with bogus data?
As DNSSEC capable resolvers are not very secure, you don't
have to make plain resolvers so secure.
For example, root key rollover is as easy/difficult as
updating IP addresses for b.root-servers.net.
Then maybe read the rest of this thread, cause lots of folks pointed out
issues with *just* updating the IP and not bothering to give it some
time to settle :)
In this thread, I'm the first to have pointed out that old IP
addresses of root servers must be reserved (for 50 years).
Masataka Ohta
Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
They are supposed to automatically de-orbit in ~5 years (atmospheric drag) if they are DOA based on a quick search. That does mean that they are space junk for a while but not permanent space junk. > On 19 Jun 2023, at 17:44, b...@uu3.net wrote: > > Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all. > How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit. > > I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere). > If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit. > > I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be > better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places. > Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization. > > We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet. > GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R > > > -- Original message -- > > From: Tom Beecher > To: Dave Taht > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps > Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400 > >> >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight >> termination system. >> > > The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the first > time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold them > back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to problems > solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore. > > The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised >> fondag, >> as thought. >> > > The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still > exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the > terms of their contract with the state of Texas. > > There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site >> has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was >> issued for the next 6 months last week. >> > > Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to > the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind > boggling. > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher wrote: Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more >> capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to >> really drive down the launch cost. >>> >>> >>> Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test >> launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the >> media. Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades >> have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes. >> >> 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the >> improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive. >> A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch. >> >> The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of >> the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised >> fondag, >> as thought. >> >> While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as >> fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and >> analysis that exists: >> >> https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut >> https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase >> >> They are good folk to track. >> >> Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of space: >> >> https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace >> >> https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/ >> >> There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily >> progress, with live video feeds. >> >> There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing >> megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site >> has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was >> issued for the next 6 months last week. >> >> The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the >> new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight >> termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested >> next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with >> electric and have better motor shielding in general. >> >> Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a >> spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be >> early september. >> >> >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56˙˙PM Michael Thomas wrote: Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking >> about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like it >> could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying
Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps
Heh, its kinda sad that noone mentions space environment impact at all. How that 40k sats will pollute already decently pulluted orbit. I wonder if decommision process will be clean (burn in atmosphere). If there will be failure rate, we will end up w/ dead sats at orbit. I really wonder if thats really necessary. I think that money could be better spent building earth infra reaching those under-serviced places. Cheaper, easy maintenance, less centralization. We also need orbit for more importand sats out there than internet. GPS, earth monitoring infra, space telescopes, R -- Original message -- From: Tom Beecher To: Dave Taht Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: FCC Chair Rosenworcel Proposes to Investigate Impact of Data Caps Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2023 21:11:53 -0400 > > The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the > new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight > termination system. > The fact that not only they tested WITHOUT a water deluge system the first time, OR a flame trench, is why the Cult of Musk will continue to hold them back. It's fascinating to me to watch him 'discover' solutions to problems solved 50 years ago that he chose to ignore. The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of > the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised > fondag, > as thought. > The easily predictable environmental damage around the launch area still exists and is significant, and will take them months to clean up via the terms of their contract with the state of Texas. There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing > megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site > has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was > issued for the next 6 months last week. > Also here, the fact that they even have LOX and CH4 thanks THAT CLOSE to the pad itself is borderline negligent, but still absolutely mind boggling. On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 8:04˙˙PM Dave Taht wrote: > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 5:16˙˙PM Tom Beecher wrote: > >> > >> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more > capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to > really drive down the launch cost. > > > > > > Starship is years away from being flight ready. The most recent test > launch from Texas was not a 'successful failure' as widely portrayed in the > media. Reputable people who have been working in this field for decades > have pointed out tons of massive problems that are not quick fixes. > > 1) I agree that they are years from flight ready, however the > improvements in the queue for the next launch are already impressive. > A lot of nay-saying concerns have been addressed since the launch. > > The environmental impact was far less than believed. An analysis of > the dust spread across town was shown to just be sand, not vaporised > fondag, > as thought. > > While the everyday astronaut and starbase_csi can be thought of as > fanbois, they are also producing the most quality reporting and > analysis that exists: > > https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut > https://twitter.com/CSI_Starbase > > They are good folk to track. > > Eric Burger is a more conventional tech journalist covering all of space: > > https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace > > https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/ > > There are an amazing number of individuals reporting on daily > progress, with live video feeds. > > There is really massive construction going on, replacing the existing > megabay, the damaged tanks are being replaced rapidly, the launch site > has been dug out and partially repaired, and a new launch license was > issued for the next 6 months last week. > > The principal barriers to another launch are a successful test of the > new water deluge system, and qualifying a more advanced flight > termination system. The next ship and booster will possibly be tested > next month, and these have replaced the hydrolic controls with > electric and have better motor shielding in general. > > Yes, an utterly amazing amount of things need to go right to launch a > spaceship, but ... my best bet for another launch of starship would be > early september. > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 17, 2023 at 6:56˙˙PM Michael Thomas wrote: > >> > >> Whether or not it makes business sense isn't really what I was talking > about. I was talking about the home dish costing $1k. That sounds like it > could easily be reduced significantly unless there is some underlying tech > reason. > >> > >> Also: they plan to use Starship when it's available which has 10x more > capacity. If it really is fully reusable as advertised, that is going to > really drive down the launch cost. > >> > >> But your calculations don't take into account that they are not at > anywhere close to a full constellation: they are only at 4k out of the 40k > they need so they literally can't support higher numbers.
