Starlink was granted $880m from the FCC, but later defaulted on conditions, so didn't get most of the money.
Starshield, on the other hand, has been directly funded by the US government to the tune of ~$9b in reported funding (much of it NRO or Space Force classified). It has ~250 satellites up as of now.
> A subsidy, subvention or government incentive is a type of government expenditure which redistributes from tax payers to individuals, households, or businesses. Subsidies take various forms, such as direct government expenditures, tax incentives, soft loans, price support, and government provision of goods and services.
SpaceX benefited from the italicized items in this definition.
DoD financing for Starlink was a long term game to create pLEO sensing capabilities: initially GMTI, then AMTI.
Both of which give the US military more persistent (revisit delay near zero because number of assets) and survivable (number of assets + LEO debris characteristics + cattle vs pets) ISTAR.
And an advantage in persistent ISTAR is a key enabler of the way the US military is aiming to fight a peer state adversary.
I'd be fascinated to dig into the contracts, but at 10,000' it's DoD offloading the bulk of the development cost onto NASA and the public (which in both cases, still gets good value for money).
Department of defense. Persistent low earth orbit. Ground moving target indicator. Air moving target indicator. Low earth orbit. Intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance. National aeronautics and space administration
This. Orbital debris are an area denial attack, and since there's only one shared planetary orbit (in aggregate), debris-creating weapons are more like biological weapons, poison gas, and tactical nuclear weapons. Even if you win, you've impeded yourself.
The internationally hoped for outcome should be that China continues scaling their orbital use, to the point where it becomes mutually advantageous to sign a treaty with the US banning orbital debris-creating weapons (and ideally imposing mutually-supported consequences on non-signatories who breach the agreement).
Then everyone would be left with more sane options of disabling-only (microwave, laser, targeted EMP, etc).
I'm not sure what the point of vibe reading is when the announcement[1] is right there and explicitly calls out third party store support, being able to play "your PC games", and the fact that the device will run Windows. Could they backtrack on all this? Maybe, but it seems a bit too late for that.
The only thing I'm not certain of is the exact shape of the "exit button". It could be a "desktop app" like Windows 8 had, instead. Could be some way to add third party games to the Xbox launcher UI. Barely relevant, anyway.
> Could they backtrack on all this? Maybe, but it seems a bit too late for that.
So we're talking about taking a PC, which is a general purpose gaming platform able to use multiple stores equally, and giving Microsoft control over what can and can't run on it?
Of course Microsoft would backtrack, exactly as soon as the financial benefit to them outweighs the reputational cost.
They've been salivating over recurring revenue ever since Apple pivoted their model into leveraging hardware locking to privilege first party services.
"Giving Microsoft control" is a strange idea. If you are a DOS/Windows user (and to a large extent even if you aren't), then Microsoft was in control of the PC since the platform's inception and this doesn't change anything. Helix is a PC. Running an x86_64 CPU. It runs Windows (with some extra fluff that runs on boot), and someone will put some Linux or other on it eventually.
When I was talking about backtracking, I meant doing so before the release of the project, which would be reputation damage with no profit. And if it's out, as specified, then there's not really any backtracking to speak of anymore.
Walmart / Home Depot / Lowes / Kroger are generally going to beat Amazon on quickest delivery for most people for most items, if they want to, by virtue of their local brick and mortar footprint.
One reason I imagine Amazon pushed so hard for short delivery times was knowing eventually their legacy peers would leverage this against them.
Not to mention a long delivery time gives people more opportunity to simply go to the store and get something, while they’re out running other errands.
I live in a well populated suburban area. If I’m willing to actually leave my house, I can get most things much faster than Amazon can deliver them. This also helps keep those local businesses running, so shipping doesn’t become the only option in the future.
Laws are typically implicitly considerate of scale. Very rarely are they explicitly considerate of scale.
To wit, sharing music digitally, Google scanning books, or Uber/Lyft providing unlicensed taxi services.
It's pretty rare that laws consider what should happen if it were suddenly possible to 10x or 100x preexisting throughput.
And specifically where laws balance multiple, often-opposed, stakeholders' interests, that change can drastically upset the previously negotiated compromise.
Which is why piracy at scale, before it's banned, tends to be a successful foundation for many businesses.
Starshield, on the other hand, has been directly funded by the US government to the tune of ~$9b in reported funding (much of it NRO or Space Force classified). It has ~250 satellites up as of now.
reply