I am. I'd still like it to work in N numbers other than my own. The capricious gnomes at starlink now have reason to kill my service at random and that feels bad -- if indeed that's why they wanted the info.
Yes, but we still have to live in reality.
At least AOPA is admitting, for what seems like the first time in a while, that piston singles exist.
www.ccts-cprst.ca
As far as I could tell, the average time between handoffs is about four minutes and, given that the satellite itself is going 17,000mph, the 100mph plane would change that by plus or minus 2-3 seconds. Doppler shift at 17,000mph is 0.0025%, which is already a rounding error of zero. Adding another 0.00000014% for the speed of the piston single[1] won't change that. But, I'm listening. Show your math if you think otherwise.
I haven’t dug in outside of accepting their word that mobility launched a year after fixed terminals because they needed to account for the Doppler shift. But your assumption that the plane and satellite are moving relative to each other is missing the change in relative motion every second that the beam signaling needs to account for. My point is it is a vector, not scalar, math issue. And likely a harder issue at 450 kts which is where their focus is. With another element being how much of the processing is in the terminal vs satellite vs orchestration layer but would guess it’s all three.
teslanorth.com
It would appear that my math was right, but that a shift of that order is still meaningful for satellite speeds.
You can say the same thing about the cable that brings TV and Internet into my house, compared to POTS phone service in the 80s. But I'm still gonna complain about it!
True, but you can say the same thing about flat screen TV's, PC's, cell phones, auto electronics, etc etc. If LG or Hisense had a monopoly and suddenly started charging $10,000 for a 55" TV that normally goes for $199, there would be a lot of ****ed off customers. I paid $5000 for my 55" plasma in 2005, adjust for inflation and it's about $10K now. Pilots were paying a very fair price on the Roam plan, and it's far less expensive for Starlink to service GA pilots than the $39 home internet plan they just introduced. It's just plain price gouging. BTW, I started on computers with a 300baud dial up modem that used to be outrageously expensive. I took FORTRAN courses on punched cards. I have personally benefited tremendously from advances in technology - but I wouldn't ever want to go back in time.
I have no idea what you mean by "normally" in this context. Starlink is a sui generis product and they're still figuring out the market. I don't think there's a "normal" for an industry that's only existed for a minute and is still rapidly developing.
I don't disagree with you yet I still think "figuring out the market" is a very kind way of saying "throwing darts because they don't think before they act".
I used the term "normally" to describe a mature market like TV's, not Starlink. Of course this is a developing market. But they have a pretty pitiful management team to set a price, advise customers to use a certain plan, then completely change the pricing and rules by more than 2500% (500% price increase, 500% data reduction). And they have proven that they are profitable on these plans, thus Starlink being the cash cow attraction in the IPO.
Facts
Musk's motto is "Move Fast and Break Things". This attitude is entrenched across his businesses and was also entrenched in his leadership of the DOGE process.
I don't know what the company's profitability is, but I just learned in the other thread that it offers no fixed-price contracts. That's a pretty strong indication that they're still working out pricing and the price might change on you.
So this was the expected behavior?
Expected? No they haven changed the plans mostly better from my point of view up till this move. Surprising after the fact? No.
I was about to write almost exactly the same thing, but you beat me to it.
The "break things" part means taking large/bold steps with an acceptance that's some stuff's not going to work (and may in fact fail spectacularly). You then learn from what doesn't work and redirect appropriately in the process of reaching a goal. This approach is distinct from a more traditional/cautious approach of doing more analysis, more testing, and more trials on smaller scales with the intent of avoiding spectacular failures in the process of reaching a goal.
The break things part are more PR than reality. What they are doing is often rapid iteration. Breaking or not is secondary. I guess people think or likes to think break because of all the explosion Space X had on their road to where they are.
Pretty sure nobody thinks that.
Some CEOs in automotive seems to, only to find out there’s no magic once they tried the same stuff internally.
"Criticism" is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, someone can assess Starship's history of 11 launches, 9 of which ended in complete or partial failure, and opine that this is "reckless and destructive". A different person can opine, "It's bold and possibly achieves faster progress than lengthy component and subsystem tests and large-scale simulations that minimize loss of flight hardware". However, either way you opine, the facts are that a bunch of Starships have been lost in test flights. It is reasonable to describe that as "moving fast and breaking things" (even though yes it was Zuckerburg and not Musk who actually said it) and this attitude of "let's try things and learn from what happens" in what can sometimes seem like a willy-nilly way to an outside observer is a consistent thread in his management style.
Zuck may have said it first, but since then, everybody who wants to sound like an edgy leader at a tech company has repeated it. Trust me. It has it's place, as you point out, but if you only have a hammer, every problem is a nail, and this mantra doesn't work for every problem.
So boils down to corporations being corporations. Not a surprise.
Why?
