Season 1: Starlink vs Amazon, Season 2 DLC: Apple and whoever buys OneWeb. Hopefully “Satellite Wars” comes with a mandatory space-junk clean‑up patch before we wrap the planet in metal.
59
Sheepherder85374 days ago
+16
Season 3: All the shade from the satellites saves us from global warming further grounding the idiots in their belief that climate change isn’t real
Season 4: The cooling goes too far, plunging us into an ice age and everybody except the top echelon of society dies.
16
Durandal_Tycho4 days ago
+8
Nah, the top eschelon is absolutely useless when it comes to taking care of themselves.
8
adx9314 days ago
+3
And there's no loyalty without a paycheck, well, maybe Elon will be fine. His base isn't rational.
3
JoeBob614 days ago
+1
Which side has access to the space lasers?
1
Dr_Porknbeef4 days ago
+1
It'll be a dirty telephone that does them in.
1
Durandal_Tycho4 days ago
+1
Always good to find a Hitchhiker's guide reference!
1
Sheepherder85374 days ago
-1
Maybe but they got bunkers tho 😆
-1
RedDragons84 days ago
+3
Snowpiercer confirmed
3
threepair134 days ago
+2
I got a jacket
2
poopySkillet4 days ago
+2
Definitely not gonna heat up the planet with having more metal and trash near us while orbiting the sun
2
cyberentomology4 days ago
+1
Oneweb is owned by SES.
1
aradraugfea5 days ago
+17
Oh good, now we can accelerate the speed at which nothing can leave earth orbit without running the risk of hitting something :/
17
SomewhereNo83784 days ago
+3
luckily I think they’re in pretty low orbit
3
LateEnd90534 days ago
+2
That's a really bad thing that barely anyone thinks about, one of the biggest concerns, tbh
2
horrificmedium4 days ago
+3
Kessler Syndrome: The Race to Extinction - coming to a sky near you!!!
3
TiredOfBeingTired284 days ago
+2
Ten, twenty years, can no longer even get into orbit, humans have finally entombed the entire race for more money.
2
bros4024 days ago
+2
don't worry, they'll send up a giant magnet so they can go back into space
2
aranasyn2 days ago
+2
The s1 finale is the death of our launchable atmosphere as one of these poorly made things starts a cascade of undodgeable space junk when it takes out a larger satellite.
2
rothj55 days ago
+288
11.57 billion to launch a satellite company feels like a steal when AI companies are getting double, triple, and even 10 times that.
288
boogermike5 days ago
+67
Yeah I'm here to make the same comment. That seems like a pretty big bargain. I mean, I guess I don't know anything about the particular business, but that seems like a c**** use of Amazon Capital
67
ohlookahipster5 days ago
+27
It won’t be c**** for consumers. It will require the $140/yr Prime plan in addition to the service subscription which is probably $50/mo for 100ish mbps.
27
RoyalOakPiguet4 days ago
+7
Starlink lowest plan is $40/100mbps so they'd at least need to compete there
7
DummyDumDragon5 days ago
+8
Well who else did you think was gonna buy the multi-billion $ thing for Amazon? The multi-billionaire owner of Amazon?? Don't be silly!
8
cyberentomology3 days ago
Amazon is publicly traded, it has many owners.
0
frozented4 days ago
+5
I know people in rural areas that are paying twice that for 10 mps I recommend starlink but they haven't changed for whatever reason
5
instant_ace4 days ago
Maybe because its Starlink and they can't stand the thought of giving Elon even a penny? I hate to see Amazon and Starlink be the only two sat companies out there in 5 years. Their greed knows no bounds and I'm so sick of not having choice in what is supposed to be a "free market"
0
broncosandwrestling4 days ago
+14
In rural America? No, I don't think Musk's politics are why
14
photostrat4 days ago
-6
If star link was my only internet option, id have to quit my job of 15 years.
Have some sense of decency.
-6
DoomguyFemboi4 days ago
+3
Nobody is quitting their job of 15 years just so they didn't use a service run by that bellend. He should be shot into the sun of course. But you'd be absolutely mental to destroy your life for that particular principle
3
lordpanda5 days ago
+5
It's the AI hype premium, satellites have been around since the 50s so investors don't think they are cool anymore.
5
420_SixtyNine3 days ago
+1
They're not getting shit lmao. They're just moving nonexistent money around because they know the bubble will pop. The only real "AI" companies that have value are the ones that own internet infrastructure and will need to build datacenters anyway for other purposes, aka amazon google etc. That and nvidia of course. But those companies don't really rely on "AI" to exist and would buy each other's silicon even without the AI hype. OpenAI and others throwing dumb investment numbers around is all hot air to keep milking the stakeholder paypigs until the bubble pops and the rats can pull the rug under them through insider trading.
1
BinniesPurp1 day ago
+1
They're launching 24 of them, starlink I think at the moment has 11,500
So they'd need to do this another 100 times before being any kind of serious competition
1
ToxicAdamm5 days ago
-8
It's still a fledgling company with no real public awareness.
-8
ars-derivatia5 days ago
+23
Dude Globalstar exists and provides service for like 30 years already.
23
PBKYjellythyme5 days ago
+28
Begun, the star wars have....
28
OonaPelota5 days ago
+2
A motorboatin’ salty sailor, Bezos is.
2
fullmoon635 days ago
+111
Competition for Starlink is actually a really good thing.
111
Inignot124 days ago
+47
Not for Earthbound astronomers
47
QuinnKerman3 days ago
+2
Very good for anyone who lives in or spends a lot of time in rural areas without broadband access or even cell signal
2
[deleted]4 days ago
-44
[deleted]
-44
meeps20q04 days ago
+30
Ah right of course whats better is starlink having a monopoly. How silly thinking otherwise.
30
BasroilII4 days ago
+10
Explain how competition in any industry is ever a bad thing.
Letting one company rule an entire line of service/products is a problem.
10
Traditional_Sign49414 days ago
+4
>Explain how competition in any industry is ever a bad thing.
Turning space into this is not a good thing:
[https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hJ9FjHgzOKo/XFqFeJAhvQI/AAAAAAAAQkM/XVo-6mR85MAAkKqmpUIX-9sAMijmjeiMQCLcBGAs/s1600/Stockholm\_telephone\_tower%2B%25285%2529.jpg](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hJ9FjHgzOKo/XFqFeJAhvQI/AAAAAAAAQkM/XVo-6mR85MAAkKqmpUIX-9sAMijmjeiMQCLcBGAs/s1600/Stockholm_telephone_tower%2B%25285%2529.jpg)
4
BasroilII4 days ago
+2
So instead you let millions of people's only way to access the internet and in some cases communicate with the larger world be dependent on the whims of one psychotic billionaire? I don't want more junk up there than anyone. But I also don't want any one person or company having that much control over a vital service.
2
[deleted]4 days ago
-9
[deleted]
-9
BasroilII4 days ago
+6
Wow, lots to unpack there.
First, I'd be happy to see a clear night sky. But you know damn well we aren't going to be getting rid of Starlink any time soon so I would rather see someone else come into the market than let Musk control internet access for millions of people.
Second, you do know something like 80% of all Starlink traffic is not from the US, right? It actually benefits other countries more, since most of the US outside heavily rural areas has infrastructure in place for high-speed internet.
Third, choosing to take your comments about US politics as talking about my countrymen in general, not accusing me personally. But either way mijn vriend, even though you're right about our president and our voting record I feel like you need a break from the internet for a bit.
6
KimJongFunk5 days ago
+22
Full Article Text:
> April 14 (Reuters) - Amazon.com (AMZN.O) said on Tuesday it would acquire Globalstar (GSAT.O) in an $11.57 billion deal, bolstering its fledgling satellite business as it looks to take on Elon Musk-led bigger rival Starlink.
> Shares of satellite company Globalstar were up more than 9% in premarket trading, after gaining over 6% in the past two weeks following media reports of the companies' discussions. The stock had nearly doubled in value last year and has risen about 12% so far this year, before news of an acquisition emerged. Amazon shares rose about 1% on Tuesday.
> The deal gives Amazon access to Globalstar's network of two dozen satellites, boosting the tech giant's ambitions to challenge SpaceX unit Starlink, which currently has about 10,000 units in orbit.
> Under the deal, the satellite firm's shareholders can elect to receive either $90 in cash or 0.3210 shares of Amazon common stock for each share of Globalstar they own, the companies said.
> Amazon has been working to ramp up its network by deploying about 3,200 satellites in Earth's low orbit by 2029, with roughly half required to be in place by a July 2026 regulatory deadline.
> The company currently operates a network of more than 200 satellites and is preparing to roll out its satellite internet services later this year.
> In contrast, Elon Musk's Starlink - the dominant satellite-based internet service provider - already serves more than nine million users globally.
> Covington, Louisiana-based Globalstar, popular as the service that powers Apple's (AAPL.O) "Emergency SOS" feature, operates about two dozen satellites in low-Earth orbit. Late last year, it said a new, Apple-backed network under development would expand that to 54 satellites, including a small number of backups.
> Globalstar offers voice, data, and asset-tracking services to customers across the enterprise, government and consumer markets.
> In a parallel move, Amazon and Apple - which has invested some $1.5 billion in Globalstar - have signed an agreement to continue powering the satellite-based safety features, such as Emergency SOS and Find My, for iPhone and Apple Watch users.
> The acquisition is expected to close next year, subject to regulatory approvals and achievement of specific satellite deployment milestones by Globalstar.
22
AlyadaHatchet5 days ago
+43
Competition to Starlink would be nice. Starlink keeps changing their plans pricing and adding different fees to start service in specific areas.
43
Lyftaker5 days ago
+21
This won't stop them.
21
Luckydog125 days ago
+16
When you’re not the only option you actually have to cater to your customers.
16
underfern4 days ago
+6
That must be why cable companies are all so widely loved for their customer service.
6
UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy4 days ago
+6
The problem with cable companies is that they have localized monopolies. Although it certainly is right that competition doesn't magically make service better if they all decide to be shitty together
6
Martin_Aurelius5 days ago
+8
Why compete when you can collude?
8
Luckydog125 days ago
+9
This is more a d*** measuring contest with Musk. Does Blue Origin collude with Space-X?
9
SoreLoserOfDumbtown5 days ago
+13
A duopoly isn't exactly competition tho, and Bezo/Amazon already have far too much influence. I don't like this at all.
13
Weareallgoo5 days ago
+10
There’s also [AST SpaceMobile](https://ast-science.com/) who are launching dozens of LEO satellites this year.
10
Bob_Sconce5 days ago
+9
Heck of a lot better than a monopoly, though.
9
SoreLoserOfDumbtown4 days ago
+3
The funny thing is, if a monopoly was regulated correctly or simply run with correct ethics, *in theory* it would work well for everyone. Of course it never does, because they are run by greedy power hungry psychopaths.
3
meeps20q04 days ago
+6
I feel like the majority of systems would work if they werent run by greed psychopaths. Humanities its own worst enemy by a mile.
6
BasroilII4 days ago
+4
Well who knew if you legally allowed the people that write regulation legislature to be receive payment from the people they would potentially regulate, they suddenly turn anti-regulation?
4
instant_ace4 days ago
+2
Same, there is no way this ends in lower competitive prices...
2
meeps20q04 days ago
+2
True, but it's the first step to it being neither. Hopefully, more competitors throw their hat in the ring (ideally more from other nations). The less one group can consolidate power, the better.
2
campelm5 days ago
+2
I've got a shitburger and a shit sandwich for you. Pick one
2
BasroilII4 days ago
+1
No, but each new company that gets into a market not only helps cut into the threat of monopoly, but encourages other companies to do the same.
1
kiwi3p5 days ago
+20
Dang does this mean more layoffs are coming?
20
KimJongFunk5 days ago
+18
Those were coming regardless
18
kiwi3p4 days ago
+1
Jassy not listening to the “be frugal” leadership principle lately. SMH
1
BrianCruikshank4 days ago
+3
There will always be more layoffs coming.
3
pribnow5 days ago
+50
its wild to me that society was just super cool with tech companies completely changing how the night sky looks now :(
50
biggsteve814 days ago
+33
The big electric utilities have already done that, in that most of us don't have a clear view of the dark night sky because of outdoor lighting.
33
bennnjamints4 days ago
+15
IIRC It's not even necessary, it would just be a little more expensive and take some retrofitting to put in lights that don't cause as much light pollution.
15
pribnow4 days ago
+6
thats really more of a localized issue (your regional government could intervene, bet you'll find out your neighbors wont go for it though), you can frequently see starlink sats pretty much anywhere (i say that as someone who lives in a city)
6
impulsekash4 days ago
+3
I'm starting to get into astronomy :(
3
Upset-Government-8564 days ago
+2
If they stop launching those swarms of small satellites the sky will be back to normal in like 5-10 years. This is a very short term issue if we really started to care.
2
cyberentomology4 days ago
+7
The night sky looks no different. Are you saying you can see a black object the size of a dining room table from 350 miles away against the background of space?
I call absolute bullshit.
7
pribnow4 days ago
+3
~~You mean the thing with lights attached to it?~~ I am dumb
You can already see satellites in the sky (blink vs twinkle), hell you can see starlink satellites often, go look up pictures
3
Weird_Track_21644 days ago
+1
Yeah this was already an issue like a hundred years ago when big cities started becoming the giant beams of light that they are. Satellites aren't going to do shit compared to that.
1
DeatonationgGrenade4 days ago
+1
I’m not cool with it. I get why it’s happening, but I miss the quiet wide open night sky.
1
Funkytadualexhaust5 days ago
+6
They got enough rockets for these satellites?
6
Icyknightmare5 days ago
+7
No. That's the bottleneck. SpaceX can do Starlink because they make their own satellites and launch them on Falcon 9 at cost, which is very low since they only need a new upper stage for each flight, not a whole new launcher. SpaceX has 4 Falcon 9 boosters with over 30 flights, and another 12 with more than 10 flights each.
There will be no serious competition to Starlink in the LEO constellation space until a competitor to Falcon 9 has achieved rapid reusability.
7
biggsteve814 days ago
+4
Can they not also use New Glenn rockets as those get into production?
4
Icyknightmare4 days ago
+4
New Glenn could do it, and is technically capable of being used that way from what I know, but at the pace they're going it's going to take years to start re-launching them with regularity.
IMO New Glenn flying like Falcon 9 does today won't happen until the 2030s. It can't be overstated just how hard of a problem landing and re-using orbital rockets is. Back in the early days, SpaceX was routinely mocked for thinking it was even a possibility. That they've made it a routine operation is a miracle of engineering.
Matching that as Blue Origin, or any other launch provider, is going to be challenging and will take time.
4
EverettSucks5 days ago
+33
Great, more trash in orbit and lost resources on the ground, sigh.
33
[deleted]5 days ago
[deleted]
0
ChiefBlueSky5 days ago
+2
Thankfully we dont need to worry about kessler from these as they're meant to eventually burn and arent in high/stable orbits, but its still the stupidest f****** thing we could be burning money on outside of ai data centers
2
swingadmin5 days ago
+4
Apple the real w***** here. They get the satellite signal guarantee they bought 25% of Globalstar for, and get a huge buyout of their shares.
4
ASATClassico5 days ago
+18
I’d rather have a clear view of the stars, but that doesn’t seem to make anybody money
18
KwisatzHaderach945 days ago
+9
there's almost 10K of these things orbiting the planet. it's a big sky, but getting more crowded by the year.
9
Capricorn755 days ago
+23
Whew! For a minute there I thought Bozos might do something worthwhile and humanitarian with his billions.
23
fluffy_ninja_5 days ago
+15
I do think that satellite internet is one of those things that benefits everyone. Sure f*** the consolidation of Amazon and Bezos buying up more companies and all that, but competition to Starlink will be great. Right now, Starlink is pretty much the only option for people living in remote areas, field researchers who are off the grid, many ocean vessels, etc.
15
ChiefBlueSky5 days ago
-7
You know what would benefit people more and could easily be done with 11.57 billion? Laying actual physical cables in the earth that have extremely long lifespans, doesnt ruin our constellations/night sky, and doesnt rely on us literally burning precious metals on reentry. Like dont get me wrong 11.57 billion wont get that to everyone, but its sure as f*** a better investment for humanity than this expensive and stupid bullshit
-7
Eros_Incident_Denier5 days ago
+13
good luck putting cables on seaships and aircrafts.
13
jaspersgroove3 days ago
+1
You mean the things that already had ways to get internet access for years before starlink existed?
1
bellerinho5 days ago
+9
It would cost you 11 billion just to run fiber to a single village in the middle of the Sahara lol
Space based service is excellent for remote and rural areas, as well as third world countries
Are there downsides? Yeah of course. But for a lot of the world, this is the most practical way to get decent internet
9
ChiefBlueSky5 days ago
-3
That 11 billion would be a better investment for the whole village and nearby villages than satellite internet.
It would take 42 billion to connect the 22million americans without fiber, one of the most expensive areas in the world. 11billion would reach more than 1 saharan village, what a bullshit thing to say
-3
bellerinho5 days ago
+8
Internet is an extremely important tool for education
The 11 billion is obviously going towards a worldwide network, not just a few villages
8
ChiefBlueSky5 days ago
-2
A worldwide network that will last for at most 7 years or require continual and constant relaunching of satellites to maintain vs one-time infrastructure investments to lay cables. Oh and congratulations now other villages can connect to the groundwork we just laid.
It would take 42 billion to connect the 22million americans without fiber, one of the most expensive areas in the world. 11billion would reach more than 1 saharan village
-2
bellerinho5 days ago
+9
I got news for you if you think that underground fiber networks don't require maintenance lol
What do you mean other villages can connect to the groundwork? You still have to physically plow fiber to every single village. And fiber networks aren't magical point to point connections, you need central offices and cabinets with electronics and people that understand telecom networks in order to run this stuff
Here's a fun fact: want to know how much money the US government (just the US) allocated for just the BEAD project (used for plowing fiber to rural and underfunded areas)? 42.5 billion. There are a number of other telecom related federal funding sources that also provide billions. That is just for one country
Magically providing fiber in every corner of the globe is not a realistic proposition
9
Weird_Track_21644 days ago
+1
Physical cables actually do use rare minerals and how many environments/ecosystems are you going to disturb to lay these lines that are going to go everywhere on the globe?
1
ChiefBlueSky4 days ago
+1
Are we pretending people dont already travel? That even remote villages dont have known roads or paths?
And if you're going for a "rare minerals and mining" angle how about literally burning 10,000 satellites and rocket fuel?
1
Various-Passenger3984 days ago
+1
I can get high speed internet in the true middle of nowhere, hundreds of miles from the nearest airport or road. You're talking out of your ass. High speed satelite internet has done massive things for access to remote communities.
1
ChiefBlueSky4 days ago
+1
We had satellite communications and radio towers before Starlink. We dont need 20,000 LEO satellites to get signal while hiking, and your domicile would be better served by having cabling or access to radio towers than starlink if you genuinely live "hundreds of miles from a road" [x]. Its the most wasteful, stupid way to get internet imaginable.
1
Various-Passenger3984 days ago
+1
And the quality of internet in remote communities was doghsit up until Starlink came around. Its not about hiking, its about communities inaccessible by roads and people doing remote work far from civilization. I work in remote areas and work with remote communities and you cannot begin to comprehend what a massive boon Starlink has been to everyone's quality of life.
1
terminalzero5 days ago
> Laying actual physical cables in the earth that have extremely long lifespans
with how technology iterates I honestly don't think this is a good bet (and I'm Really not a fan of starlink - albedo issues, musk being able to flip the off switch, kessler syndrome et al). if it was like a massive plumbing infrastructure project and the pipes would still be useable a century later, maybe, but I don't even the fanciest of fiber runs will be viable by then
but also like, air fiber exists if you want to start setting up backhauls to population centers and then branching out to more remote areas. mesh networking can be done with some Really low power devices that run on solar, and while you probably won't be making video calls on them for a while if ever, being able to text and load simple sites etc would still be a huge boon.
there's just not much profit in it.
0
ChiefBlueSky4 days ago
+3
While I'd disagree that it wouldnt be a good bet, im all for "air fiber" or other infrastructure developments meant to be resilient and last.
But on the note of "profitable", thats half the problem. The internet should be treated as a utility like electricity and water, where profit and returns are not the final motive. From a societal/governmental standpoint the internet is a means to increased growth through connection, allowing commerce to occur more readily. So the internet itself may not be "profitable" but its worth investing in because of the downstream effects (growth, connectivity). Thats why the US is (well, was; thanks republicans) willing to put down 42 billion to connect 22million people and why governments generally support internet infrastructure programs. What we shouldnt do is completely cede a nation's/state's/city's internet access to a shitty wasteful greedily profiteering space satellite venture.
3
terminalzero4 days ago
+3
> What we shouldnt do is completely cede a nation's/state's/city's internet access to a shitty wasteful greedily profiteering space satellite venture.
100% with you - was more pointing out why we have billionaires throwing satellites in orbit instead of publics works projects setting up solar powered nodes, companies designing their webpages to be lightweight for old/low end devices and slow networks vs flashy to sell more [whatever]s, that kind of thing
3
CptVague4 days ago
+1
>I don't even the fanciest of fiber runs will be viable by then
I'll only address this point - some of the original single-mode connections that made up the early Internet are still in place and running at massively higher throughput. Essentially you change the optics on both of ends of a single-mode fiber and that increases your throughput. From \~10 megabit to terabit speeds on the same physical fiber.
In a hundred years, who knows, but fiber is definitely a long-term solution.
1
terminalzero4 days ago
+1
>some of the original single-mode connections that made up the early Internet are still in place and running at massively higher throughput
the 'some' is an important part of this though - iirc the rule of thumb is 30 or 40 years max, not because the actual fiber won't conduct light, but because of physical damage, jacket degradation, changes in coating requirements etc
1
CptVague4 days ago
+1
Fibers get cut all the time - they are able to be spliced. A big issue with fiber is that a lot of it is run next to railroads and highways. So when maintenance is done on those, the work crews cut the fiber.
Aside from that 30 or 40 years is still massively longer than a low-earth satellite swarm's lifespan.
1
terminalzero4 days ago
+2
>Aside from that 30 or 40 years is still massively longer than a low-earth satellite swarm's lifespan.
but is it worth the extra cost vs air fiber, mesh networking, etc is where I think we're disagreeing - doesn't sound like any of us in the discussion are a fan of the satellite constellations
2
CptVague4 days ago
+2
I would definitely say that it isn't worth it. One of the things that I get angry about it if I think too hard about it are all the subsidies that were given to the telcos ostensibly to improve connectivity for underserved areas that were instead used on anything but. Satellite internet for regular people would maybe not even be something worth talking about.
2
iamanurd4 days ago
+3
Can please we get a competitor from a company that dosesn't suck??
3
TheOrangeHatter4 days ago
+3
I am sure this won't result in even more low-quality satellites being hurled into orbit, accelerating our headlong charge towards Kessler Syndrome. /s
3
rounder555 days ago
+5
These billionaire fucks want to make the night sky lame
5
Luckydog125 days ago
+4
How else are they going to communicate with their global AI powered war… I mean delivery drones.
4
bubba_bumble4 days ago
+2
Mommy and Daddy are fighting again.
2
PentiumDos4 days ago
+2
Crazy to think Facebook wasted like $70+ Billion on the Metaverse/VR/Occulus when they couldve invested into something like this
2
Daleabbo4 days ago
+2
This is less about physical satellites than the operating frequency the company ownes.
2
cyberentomology4 days ago
+2
Bingo. Globalstar’s biggest asset was the n53 band.
2
nerdsports4 days ago
+2
I love how these two want us to think they’re not competing.
2
lookitsafish4 days ago
+2
Bout to be way too many satellites
2
Muddled_Opinions3 days ago
+2
So choices are "pest or cholera" as the Danish saying goes.
2
time_drifter5 days ago
+4
Great, let’s f*** up the night sky just a bit more so yachts get a better internet signal.
4
AlkahestGem5 days ago
+4
Having worked satellite programs military and civil, including global star pre-bankruptcy, Globalstar hybrid approach with Amazon may offer more flexible, rapid deployment and upgrades compared to Starlink's reliance on satellite expansions, which could be a key differentiator for certain use cases.
Globalstar's satellites use a bent pipe architecture. They rely heavily on ground-based systems to process and route signals.
Amazon's Project Kuiper is working on a network of LEO satellites that will provide global broadband coverage, similar to Starlink.
With this collaboration, Globalstar and Amazon, they can integrate Globalstar’s terrestrial infrastructure (ground stations and hardware) with the new LEO constellation for improved coverage and more efficient services.
Hybrid solution means the system could switch between satellite relay and terrestrial communication, optimizing for coverage and performance, particularly in areas with limited connectivity.
Upgrades on the ground are a significant advantage of this model since it’s easier to adjust infrastructure and add capacity without needing to upgrade the satellites themselves, which could be more challenging and costly.
4
Standard-Cockroach644 days ago
+4
Can we stop it already with f****** up the night sky with garbage?
4
gnomeymalone305 days ago
+3
pick your a****** billionaire champion
3
O-parker5 days ago
+3
We’ve phucked up earth so let’s do space
3
Crenorz5 days ago
+1
top stating it is a "challenge". They are not the same products, different markets. One is affordable consumer/military grade, one is business only and expensive. And that is IF it works.
1
Illustrious_Bad_29805 days ago
+1
Jfc. A billionaire pissing contest. Exactly what we need right now
1
Murph-Dog5 days ago
+1
Funny thing, they launch on Falcon 9.
1
Yakassa5 days ago
+1
The mega multi billionaires playing starwars. While the world goes to hell in a handbasket. How not surprising.
1
eugene204 days ago
+1
yeah, what we really need now is even more space junk /S
1
BrianCruikshank4 days ago
+1
Good. Billionaires vs. Billionaires. I hope they all end up fighting each other.
1
tropicsun4 days ago
+1
Doesnt china have a network being built too?
1
Suheil-got-your-back4 days ago
+1
Hate both, but i would rather not have elon monopoly in space.
1
Lennyisback814 days ago
+1
One company launches a bunch of space trash, so another one is gonna do the same.
1
ConsultioConsultius14 days ago
+1
Globalstar sounds a tad bit Russian if you ask me.
1
TheBlockChainVillage4 days ago
+1
How can private players take over the entire world's sky, this is ridiculous. Such tech should be the right of every citizen. It's our resources and our atmosphere the machines are operating In.
1
PrestigiousSeat763 days ago
+1
Oh goodie, more space junk.
1
BinniesPurp1 day ago
+1
"24 satellites" isn't starlink like 14,000 lol
1
Significant-Leek-8475 days ago
+1
Can't wait until the billionaire revolution begins and we nationalise the assets of these tax dodging, worker exploiting, resource stealing, earth trashing psychopathic parasites.
1
fallingdowndizzyvr4 days ago
Da comrade! Look at the worker's utopia the Soviet Union is now 100 years after the revolution! Oh wait....
0
Significant-Leek-8474 days ago
+1
How's the boot taste
1
fallingdowndizzyvr4 days ago
+1
You mean after being up your ass? It can't be good. But boot licking is your job.
1
Oregonrider20144 days ago
+1
How long before we no longer see the sky? Only half joking, it seems like nothings stopping them.
1
ihatepickingnames_4 days ago
+1
Wait until they figure out how to put ads in space for our viewing pleasure.
1
Oregonrider20144 days ago
+2
I hope its never financially viable
2
Meph6164 days ago
+1
Billionaires gonna speed run us to Kessler syndrome.
1
thepianoman4564 days ago
+1
Yup… give it like 5 years and all the satellites will just crash into each other and we’ll have a permanent garbage belt *zooming* around our planet.
1
Polsk1Ogork14 days ago
+1
Amazon launched their own Satellite company a few years ago under the brand Kuiper. They had a very aggressive timeline with how many satellites they wanted to launch each year. The business has recently been rebranded to Amazon LEO (low earth orbit) https://leo.amazon.com/
I guess they thought acquisition was faster than build your own…
1
cyberentomology4 days ago
+2
I expect that this was a play for the spectrum, Globalstar’s satellites are mostly used for voice and small data (like the SOS mode on iPhones)
2
Thatbraziliann5 days ago
-1
Im so mad at selling my shares I held on to this stock for years in the $2 range.. kicking myself in the ass now lol
-1
beck_is_back4 days ago
YAY! More overpriced, underperforming space junk no one wants!
Or is it another way for Amazon to get a tax rebate..??
0
cyberentomology4 days ago
+1
How the hell do you get to “tax rebate” from here? That’s a hell of a stretch.
1
Osiris-Amun-Ra4 days ago
Foolish decision. Starlink has a lock on this. You can now get internet anywhere on the planet pretty c**** and very reliably.
0
nithdurr5 days ago
-1
Begun, the satellite wars have..
-1
nitsthegame4 days ago
-1
Can anyone calculate at what point there would be too many satellites in orbit that astronomy as a hobby will not be fun, as in most the times you will see these satellites zoom through?
-1
Warm-Attempt77734 days ago
-1
A 2023 survey found that roughly 23% of surveyed Amazon workers relied on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
160 Comments