Comment by hakfoo

We can and should have satellites, but we can certainly be thrifty with how we use them.

The megaconstellation concept isn't necessary for most of the "cool stuff you can do with satellites." You might need a handful of weather or GPS satellites, and you can be more selective for orbits and lifecycle management if you're a responsible government operator.

The Starlink fiasco (and its clones) solely exists because we're abysmal at getting telecom projects built. If 80% of the country had the network connection you'd expect by 2024-- something like symmetric 10Gbps FTTH for $150 per month, and the other 20% was on a "real soon now" waiting list, there's precious little business case for Starlink.

Think about it: It was easier to plan out and deliver DOZENS OF ROCKET LAUNCHES AND A GALAXY OF SATELLITES than to tie down our existing telecom firms until they actually built a decent network, using technology like "backhoes" and "fibre-optic cables" that have existed for decades, cost next to nothing, and don't require literal rocket scientists to deploy.

The American telephone network under Ma Bell was almost a Wonder of the World for its scale, resilience, and universal accessibility-- and in barely one generation we ripped it out and failed to replace it with anything comparable.

I would argue the case there's a marginal case for one modest capacity public data constellation. The business case is basically Iridium warmed over-- for the places where there is no other practical option (ships at sea, completely undeveloped territories)-- you can pay $10 per gigabyte for 128k down, or to support some form of 911 outside of cell ranges. Arguably, we already had the infrastructure for that with the pre-Starlink satellite products (Viasat/Hughesnet)

But we hardly need every major power (and probably a bunch of private competitive duplication) blasting crap into space to make the deluxe version that's still not as good as a fibre running to your home.