• DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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

        • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 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?

            • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 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.