• DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 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
        ·
        4 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
            4 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
            ·
            4 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.