Author Topic: Starlink : General Discussion - Thread 1  (Read 1217334 times)

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1780 on: 01/20/2018 10:35 pm »
Who cares about current-model hand-held models?

In this industry the normal lifetime of the devices is <4 years.

I mean, when introducing 4G networks, did anyone care that existing 3G phones would have to keep using 3G?

When SL is up, you'll need to get a phone that is SL compatible - as simple as that.

The only question is whether it is possible for a vLEO constellation to directly service these hand-held devices, and I think the consensus was "yes".  (Which is why the vLEO constellation is there to begin with)

In highly populated urban areas, there could be millions of hand-held devices requesting data. Can the constellation handle that many requests with limited satellites within view?

The LEO constellation will do back-haul and maybe connect with non-hand-held terminals (e.g. car roof-top antennas, stationary stations)

I think that would be the preferred way to go. A hand-held device could connect directly, but should default to Wi-Fi, 4G, or whatever the ground access points use.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1781 on: 01/21/2018 01:16 am »
I'd argue rad-hard (Si on sapphire etc) process technology is overkill regardless ... there are very few manufacturers, it lags several generations, etc.
So what level of SEU's do you design for? What energy spectrum of charged particles do you expect your hardware will be exposed to? How much of it is above the threshold to flip one or more bits?

Quote from: jebbo
As you say, I think rad-hard enclosures are a better approach. However, having said that, *some* level of protection is sensible (and is already in current commercial hardware; e.g. single bit ECC correction is pretty much mandatory on RAMs).
[ I design high performance processors ]
In some ways it echos the question of an "industrial" PC (say a PC104 form factor, no fan cooling) versus just a regular PC put inside a solid box with a really good set of filters on the cooling fans.

It can be argued quite a lot of the issues, watchdogs, RAM monitoring, ECC RAM, temp monitoring, are already provided in server grade motherboards, versus the BAe supplied POWERPC rad hard boards on some of the NASA rovers at $100K each.

In LEO, which I think most of Starlink can be said to be, and well below the ISS, their current architecture is good enough.
[EDIT
Ooops.  :-[

Forgot about the South Atlantic Anomaly and it's effect on background radiation levels. It's really impressive to watch a camera image fill up with "snow" while the cover is still on the camera due to the channeled particles hitting the pixels.

Even the protction of Earths magnetosphere is not complete at some points.  ]
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 11:21 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1782 on: 01/21/2018 01:51 am »

They also routinely move payloads through van Allen Belts... so LEO isn't their only experience to date.
Hopefully soon they will be flying routinely BEO and inform/solidify what defines state-of-the-art in comms and power processing.
Move through maybe, not recover from. IIRC the payload has already separated by then. I'd hope SX have continued to gather data from their stages to find out what a trip through the Van Allan belts does to them.
I said this a few times, but I don't think it's far fetched to say that Starlink could be the most profitable single business venture on Earth... (well, technically, not on Earth, but you know what I mean  ;) ) Which is why they are so quiet about it.
Indeed, it should be more profitable than Iridum, Orbcomm and Globalstar put together.
The radiation environment isn't necessarily much better than deep space. In LEO, you also have to deal with part of the Van Allen Belts.

Crews are more sensitive to GCR than silicon is, relative to the types of radiation received in LEO. You most certainly can extrapolate that experience to beyond LEO, concern-trolling aside.

I'd say that SpaceX's experience in LEO shows their approach, if tweaked a little bit, would work just fine beyond LEO.
Very much in the way their experience of booster recovery can be transferred to upper stage recovery perhaps?
In the US, cellphone data is priced about 50x what broadband data is priced, per bit.  I'd imagine there is a large ratio in other countries as well.
A very good point. But isn't that more an issue with regulation than technology?

Quote from: IainMcClatchie
If Starlink ships all it's ground terminals so that they publish a WiFi network accessible by any Starlink customer, and if phones get fast at switching WiFi basestations mid-call, and if Starlink can patch their coverage by adding their own ground terminals along freeways and perhaps in downtown areas... then Starlink can capture some interesting fraction of the worldwide cell service market.
And it only needs 3 "ifs" to work out as you predict to be correct.

In some places that would make it a virtual certainty that it will happen.
Risk reduction.

From SpaceX's POV.

At a rate of 30 launches a year, splashing S2 costs some $600M/year, this is going to get worse as Starlink ramps.

You are working to some date that you believe BFS (possibly with BFR) can take over the majority of F9 launches.
Say this is 2021 (using BFS-SSTO launching maximum payloads of 10 tons, for the sake of argument).

From a business case alone, from 2019-2021, you have $1B of S2 cost or so in F9 launches.

If you can bring re-usability forward by S2R by one year, you have $600M or so extra to spend on BFS.

If you consider that there is a 50% likelyhood that spending $100M now on S2R versus BFS will bring reuse forward a year (including probable BFS delays)  that may be a very simple trade to make, as it may actually in many cases lead to BFS happening sooner.


At some point 'distracting from the BFS effort' becomes 'providing more money for the BFS effort'.
Yes, sign me up for that.

But the decision they (apparently) made was to move forward faster.

My point was that it was not a case of insufficient ooomph, if you'll pardon the phrasing...
No, it was a case of insufficient materials science and the physics of reentry, and the inability to turn a stage into a reentry vehicle, without actually turning it into a reentry vehicle.

I look forward to BFS solving those issues and having a long and successful operating life.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 01:56 am by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1783 on: 01/21/2018 04:11 am »
...
No, it was a case of insufficient materials science and the physics of reentry, and the inability to turn a stage into a reentry vehicle, without actually turning it into a reentry vehicle.
..
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and not even wrong.

There is and was no technical showstopper to upper stage reuse. It's a matter of proper use of resources.

A reusable upper stage for Falcon 9 wouldn't be able to serve the bread-and-butter GTO launches with sufficient performance, and generally it was decided that the huge amount of resources needed to make that work would be better spent on BFR.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1784 on: 01/21/2018 04:26 am »
I thought this thread was about Starlink?

Offline IainMcClatchie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • San Francisco Bay Area
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 411
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1785 on: 01/21/2018 07:40 am »
In the US, cellphone data is priced about 50x what broadband data is priced, per bit.  I'd imagine there is a large ratio in other countries as well.
A very good point. But isn't that more an issue with regulation than technology?

I don't think so.  I think it's both supply and demand in this case.  The demand for cellphone subscriptions (416m yielding $235B/year in the US in 2016) is much higher than the demand for broadband subscriptions (63m yielding $35.5B/year in the US in 2016).  The revenue per subscription is about the same, but the number of cellphone subscriptions is 6.6x larger.  (My home, for instance, has 4 cellphone subscriptions and 1 broadband subscription).
 I'd argue the revenue per subscription is about the same because the perceived value is about the same, even if the number of broadband bits shipped is 8x larger.

It's harder to argue that limited supply is driving prices up.  Certainly there is more competition in the cellphone space, as any given customer can choose among two or three actual providers (and dozens of resellers, which is all noise).  But cables have vastly more bandwidth than cellphone spectrum does, and I think this technological issue, rather than regulation (spectrum licenses) is what drives the cost per cellphone bit higher.

Quote from: john smith 19
Quote from: IainMcClatchie
If Starlink ships all it's ground terminals so that they publish a WiFi network accessible by any Starlink customer, and if phones get fast at switching WiFi basestations mid-call, and if Starlink can patch their coverage by adding their own ground terminals along freeways and perhaps in downtown areas... then Starlink can capture some interesting fraction of the worldwide cell service market.
And it only needs 3 "ifs" to work out as you predict to be correct.

Yup, I think it's possible.  The battery-powered local ground terminal for folks who might be heading out from the reliable spots is a fine idea, for instance.  With an average comms spend of $565/year, folks can afford a couple of hundred dollars on extra hardware to take advantage of a cheaper rate, so long as setup requires zero thinking (i.e. it came preinstalled on my car and my phone Just Works anywhere nearby).

All true, but this is a view of "how will SL look in the context of today's comm market."
....
What kind of comm market will grow around SL?  How many industries will become dependent on it?

What else can SL do once it has 10,000 satellites in orbit?

I don't think it's practical to project forward to more revenues that the existing global cellphone market (which is growing).

Energy and food and now communications are sucking up a very large fraction of people's total spending.  No matter how attractive a new product might be, it can't significantly grow one of these spending categories (or establish a new one) unless people either spend less on another category (e.g. spending on car depreciation drops as fewer cars service more people) or get more income from increased productivity.  The trouble with the latter is that most productivity increases in the U.S. are going to a small fraction of the population who aren't a big enough communications market.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1786 on: 01/21/2018 11:33 am »
...
No, it was a case of insufficient materials science and the physics of reentry, and the inability to turn a stage into a reentry vehicle, without actually turning it into a reentry vehicle.
..
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and not even wrong.

There is and was no technical showstopper to upper stage reuse. It's a matter of proper use of resources.
The "technical showstopper" is that SX can't build one with a substantial enough payload afterward.
IOW the materials science is not good enough to do the job for the weight it would need to make reuse economic.

That is a "technical showstopper."

It's also what happens when you base a business plan around
1)Solve as much of the problem as you can
2)Hope something comes up by the time you get to the hard part.
As it's turned out "something" is "build it 10x bigger and put wings on it."
I like to think of it as "The Micawber paradigm,"  but I'm sure others have noticed it in lots of other contexts.


Quote from: Robotbeat
A reusable upper stage for Falcon 9 wouldn't be able to serve the bread-and-butter GTO launches with sufficient performance, and generally it was decided that the huge amount of resources needed to make that work would be better spent on BFR.
I quite agree. The TPS technololgy SX has is simply not up to the job with such an architecture.
It's certainly true that BFR/BFS will take a huge amount of resources to make it work.
No doubt they will make full reuse work this time.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1787 on: 01/21/2018 12:18 pm »
...

I don't think it's practical to project forward to more revenues that the existing global cellphone market (which is growing).

Energy and food and now communications are sucking up a very large fraction of people's total spending.  No matter how attractive a new product might be, it can't significantly grow one of these spending categories (or establish a new one) unless people either spend less on another category (e.g. spending on car depreciation drops as fewer cars service more people) or get more income from increased productivity.  The trouble with the latter is that most productivity increases in the U.S. are going to a small fraction of the population who aren't a big enough communications market.

You are projecting the economy as a zero sum game -- it never was nor ever will be.

The Internet of things is on exponential growth.  Currently expected 'users' to be 5x world population (of humans) by early 2020s and still growing exponentially.  Population, as you say, is limited -- but only half of the world's population have cell phones and a much smaller fraction have broadband service.  On the other hand, automobiles, which currently number over one billion with 100 million being produced each year, are going to become broadband 'things' for instance...
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 12:43 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1788 on: 01/21/2018 05:25 pm »
I thought this thread was about Starlink?

It's inevitable that "... but F9 US!" would crop up in almost any thread.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1789 on: 01/21/2018 05:57 pm »
IOW the materials science is not good enough to do the job for the weight it would need...
...
That is just wrong. Materials science is not the problem. Nothing technical failed. They never claimed fully reusable flights to GTO with Falcon 9. They just changed their mind about whether it's worth doing for Falcon 9, which they already knew would only do fully reusable launches to LEO.

You keep trying to invent technical failures where there are none.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 06:03 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1790 on: 01/21/2018 05:58 pm »
I thought this thread was about Starlink?

It's inevitable that "... but F9 US!" would crop up in almost any thread.
This can mostly be blamed on johnsmith.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1791 on: 01/21/2018 06:53 pm »
WRT the topic of this thread...

People could do worse than study the Gravity Recovery & Climate Experirment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

This probe lasted 15 years about the same target height as Starlink and was in the same mass range (487Kg).

Likewise  Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) ran about 5 years at 260Km and had a pair of ion thrusters while massing 1077Kg at launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Field_and_Steady-State_Ocean_Circulation_Explorer

Both were long and thin, because aerodynamics (and the disturbances it causes to the internal payloads) were considered significant factors.

I'd suggest both missions have valuable lessons to teach anyone wondering what shape these satellites should be and how long they could last.
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 06:53 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1792 on: 01/21/2018 07:00 pm »
WRT the topic of this thread...

People could do worse than study the Gravity Recovery & Climate Experirment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

This probe lasted 15 years about the same target height as Starlink and was in the same mass range (487Kg).

Likewise  Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) ran about 5 years at 260Km and had a pair of ion thrusters while massing 1077Kg at launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Field_and_Steady-State_Ocean_Circulation_Explorer

Both were long and thin, because aerodynamics (and the disturbances it causes to the internal payloads) were considered significant factors.

I'd suggest both missions have valuable lessons to teach anyone wondering what shape these satellites should be and how long they could last.

We've already been told how long the sats would last (5-7years) and their basic shape/size. 
Not sure where you're going with this... (?)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1793 on: 01/21/2018 08:35 pm »
WRT the topic of this thread...

People could do worse than study the Gravity Recovery & Climate Experirment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

This probe lasted 15 years about the same target height as Starlink and was in the same mass range (487Kg).

Likewise  Gravity Field and Steady-State Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) ran about 5 years at 260Km and had a pair of ion thrusters while massing 1077Kg at launch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Field_and_Steady-State_Ocean_Circulation_Explorer

Both were long and thin, because aerodynamics (and the disturbances it causes to the internal payloads) were considered significant factors.

I'd suggest both missions have valuable lessons to teach anyone wondering what shape these satellites should be and how long they could last.

We've already been told how long the sats would last (5-7years) and their basic shape/size. 
Not sure where you're going with this... (?)

We should be explicit on whether we're talking about the LEO or vLEO constellation.

I thought the LEO constellation was significantly higher than 200-300 km...  about twice that altitude IIRC.  And yes - 5-7 years.
The vLEO constellation will fly low and last fewer years, 2-3 IIRC.

That's two IIRCs in quick succession...  If I'm wrong, please jump in...
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline rakaydos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2825
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1794 on: 01/21/2018 10:07 pm »
As an aside, if the Van Allen Belts pose too much of a problem, we know how to dissipate them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Proposed_removal

Online gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1795 on: 01/21/2018 10:18 pm »
What do the Van Allen Belts have to do with Starlink?

The orbits for the Starlink constellation are around 1000km.  (The VLEO thing isn't going to happen anytime soon.)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1796 on: 01/21/2018 10:31 pm »
What do the Van Allen Belts have to do with Starlink?

The orbits for the Starlink constellation are around 1000km.  (The VLEO thing isn't going to happen anytime soon.)
That would place them around the border of the Van Allan belts.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1797 on: 01/21/2018 11:11 pm »
...

We should be explicit on whether we're talking about the LEO or vLEO constellation.

I thought the LEO constellation was significantly higher than 200-300 km...  about twice that altitude IIRC.  And yes - 5-7 years.
The vLEO constellation will fly low and last fewer years, 2-3 IIRC.

That's two IIRCs in quick succession...  If I'm wrong, please jump in...

LEO around 1100-1300km, VLEO around 340km(page 2 of attachment), thrusting continuously to avoid orbital decay (in 3-4 weeks).
5-7 year service life (page 40)for both constellation sats. -- couldn't find an alternate lifetime for VLEO sats.

Edit: Transposed figures 430-->340(correct value)
« Last Edit: 01/21/2018 11:32 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1798 on: 01/21/2018 11:42 pm »
What do the Van Allen Belts have to do with Starlink?

The orbits for the Starlink constellation are around 1000km.  (The VLEO thing isn't going to happen anytime soon.)

For some value of "soon".

If ChrisB had a nickel for every time someone said "won't happen in a decade", L2 would be free. :)

StarLink is a commercial venture, and there is competition just around the corner. I don't think they'll be wasting much time once they get going.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SpaceX - now a satellite manufacturer (Starlink)
« Reply #1799 on: 01/21/2018 11:57 pm »
What do the Van Allen Belts have to do with Starlink?

The orbits for the Starlink constellation are around 1000km.  (The VLEO thing isn't going to happen anytime soon.)

For some value of "soon".

If ChrisB had a nickel for every time someone said "won't happen in a decade", L2 would be free. :)

StarLink is a commercial venture, and there is competition just around the corner. I don't think they'll be wasting much time once they get going.

There's a tonne to learn about flying a laser comms linked network of thousands of satellites.  Phased array beam forming and steering, non-interference with others in the network and also the competition, passing off contacts, long-hauling ground data, weekly launches and rapid positioning/commissioning of new assets, de-orbiting end-of-life assets, etc. will be learned with the first LEO constellation.  Expect a number of rapid iterations in sat design and especially operating software (on board and on the ground).

Depending on how well this constellation gets established will dictate the follow-on VLEO network.  These sats have to do all the same things but much more quickly and precisely (52sq km beams vs 550sq km (page3, Figure A.2-1)) while thrusting to stay in orbit.  I suspect both will be flying by mid-2020s.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0